h 


I  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  |      |M 

Princeton,  N.  J.  *      \-^  • 

I 

From  the  Executors  of  the  Rev.  C.  NESBIT,  D.D. 

Shelf,  Section 

^         Book,  N« 


5rr 


'c>- 


Natural  Religion  inrufficient,  and  Revealed  neceifarv, 
to  Man's  Rappinefs  ia  his  Prefent  State  : 

o  R^     A 

RATIONAL   ENQUIPJf 

INTO     THE 

principles 

MODErWdEISTS; 

\y  H  E  &  fe  I  N 

15   LARGELY  DISCOVERED    THEIR    UTTER.    INSUFFICIENCY 

TO    ANSWER    THE    GREAT    ENDS  OF  RELIGION,    AND 

THE   WEAKNESS  OF  THEIR  PLEADINGS  FOR  THE 

SUFFICIENCY    OF    NATURR's    LIGHT 

TO    ETERNAL    HAPPINESS  : 

AND    PARTECULARLY 

The  Writings  of  the  late  learned  Lord  Herbert,  the  great  Patron 

of  Delfm,   to  wir,  his  Books  ^e  Veritatey  de  Religkne  Geuti' 

iiuvh  and  Religio Laicij  In  fo  far  as  they  afiert  Nature's 

Light  able  to  conducl  lis  to  future  Bleflednefs, 

are  confide  red,  and  fully  anfv/eied. 

TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED,    AN 

ESSAY  ON  THE  TRUE  GROUND  OF  FAITH. 


BY     THE    LA;rE    REVFRFND 

Mr.    THOMAS^H  a  LY  burton, 

Profeflbr  of  Divinity  in  the  Univerfity  of  St.  Andre-:  s. 

A  fcorncr  feeketh  wifdoni  and  findeth  it  not:   but  knowledge  is  eafy  imto  biiu 

that  underftandeth.  pRov.  xiv.  6. 

If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  Poall  know  of  the  dct^lrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God,  or  whether  I  fpeak  of  myfelf.  John  vii.   17- 

Solis  r.ojfc  Dsos  (U"  cxli  numina  vobis^ 
Aiit  [oils  nefcire,   datum.  Lucan.  de  Druid. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

POINTED  BY  HOGAN&  M'ELROYi'ii^.li  NORTH  THIRD-STREET,* 
And  fold  by  A.  Cunningham,  Wafhingron,  (Venn.)  A-  M'Donald,  Nor- 
th umber  land ;   C.Davis,  New-Ycivk;  and  by  J.  M'Cx-tli.och,  tfnd 
the  PubliHievs,  Philadelphia. 

1798. 


r 


t 


g^..— i_^— --J, JL^^-^ 5===»r.i=te==i==.-===a===-?^ 


PREFACE, 


THE  God  of  glory  hath  not  left  himfelf  without  a 
witnefs ;  all  his'works  do,  after  theii  manner  de- 
clare his  glory.  Aj^  now  the  beajis^  and  they  JJ:)all  teach 
thee  ;  and  the  fowls  of  the  air^  and  they  Jhall  tell  thee  : 
or  fpeak  to  the  earthy  and  it  Jhalll  teach  thee ;  and  the 
Jifhes  of  the  fea  jhall  declare  unto  thee.  Who  knoweth  not 
in  all  thefe^  that  the  hand  of  the  Lord  hath  wrought  this? 
Job  xii.  7,  8,  9.  Moreover  it  hath  plcafed  him  to 
inftamp  upon  the  confciences  ot  men,  fuch  deep  im- 
preflions  of  his  being  and  glory,  that  all  the  powers 
and  fubtilry  of  hell,  "fhall  never  be  able  to  eradicate 
them  :  Though,  alas !  through  a  cuftom  of  fin,  and 
efpecially  againit  much  light  and  convidion,  the  con- 
fciences of  many  are  debauched  in  thefe  dregs  of  time, 
to  an  obliterating  of  thefe  impreffions,  which  otherwife 
•would  have  been  ftrong  and  vivid.  The  principles  of 
moral  equity  carry  fuch  an  evidence  in  their  natiire, 
and  are  alfo  accompanied  with  fo  much  of  binding 
force  upon  the  confcitnce,  that  their  obligation  on  ra- 
tional creatures  hath  a  moil  refplendent  clearnefs,  and 
fills  the  little  world  with  fuch  a  llrength,  and  efficacy 
of  truth,  as  far  furpalTeth  the  plained  theoretical  prin- 
ciples. 


IV 


PREFACE. 


ciples.  That  one  maxim,  Mattb.  vii.  12.  Luke  vi.  3. 
therefore  all  things  ivhatfoe'vcr  ye  mould  that  men  jhould 
do  to  you,  do  ye  even  fo  to  them  ;  th?At  one  niaximj  I  faVj 
(to  pafs  otberij)  was  matter  of  fo  much  v/onder  to  fome 
of  the  moil  polite  heathens,  that  they  knew  not  wel! 
how  to  exprefs  their  fenfe  of  the  truth  and  glory  of 
it ;  they  thought  it  worthy  to  be  engraven  with  letters 
of  gold,  upon  the  frontifpieces  of  their  mod  magni- 
ficent ftruclures ;  an  agreeable  and  fpeaking  evidence 
of  its  having  been  imprinted  in  foaie  meafure  upon 
their  hearts.  Neverthelefs,  all  thefe,  though  fweet, 
ilrong,  and  convincing  notices  of  a  Deity,  do  yet 
evaniih  as  faint  glimmerings,  when  compared  to  that 
ftamp  of  divine  authority,  which  our  great  and  alone 
Lawgiver  has  deeply  imprinted  upon  the  fcriptures  of 
truth,  Pfal,  xix.  7.  The  taw  of  the  Lord  is  perfed:^  con- 
verting the  foul :  the  icftlmony  cf  the  Lord  is  fure^  ma". 
king  wife  the  fimple^  &c.  I  enter  not  upon  this  large 
theme,  which  great  men  hsive  treated  to  excellent  pur- 
pofe  ;  I  only  reprefent  very  ihortlVj  that  the  fliipendous 
account  w-e  have  in  thefe  fcripture,  of  moral  equity  in 
its  full  compafs,  comprifed  even  in  ten  words,  that 
wonderful  account,  I  fay,  proclaimeth  its  Author  with 
io  much  of  convincing  evidence,  and  fuch  drains  of 
glory,  as  i  cannot  poUibly  clothe  with  words.  The 
greatcit  men  among  the  heathen  nations,  have  given 
the  higheil  accounts  of  their  accompiiihments  by  fram- 
ing laws;  but  beddes  the  palling  v/eaknefs  of  their 
performances,  when  viewed  in  a  true  light,  the  choicefl 
of  them  all  have  a  great  deal  of  iniquity  inlaid  with 
them  :  but  all  here  iliineth  with  the  glory  o^  a  Deity* 
Every  duty  is  plainly  contained  within  thefe  fmail  boun- 
daries, and  all  concerns  thereof  in  heart  and  way,  are 
fet  down  fo  punctually,  and  fo  fully  cleared  in  the  ex- 
pofiticn  which  the  Lav/giver  himfelf  has  given  of  his 
own  laws,  that  nothing  is  wanting.     Heie  aifo  are  all 

the' 


PREFACE,  V 

the  myftsnes  of  iniquity  ia  the  heart  fo  clearly  and 
fully  detected,  thefe  evils  alfo  purfiied  to  their  mod 
latent  fources,  and  to  the  grand  ipring  of  them  ail,  viz. 
the  corruption  of  our  nature,  and  in  fo  very  few  words, 
with  fo  much  of  (liining  evidence  and  power,  that  no 
iudicious  and  fpber  perfon  can  deny  that  the  finger  of 
God  is  there,  unlefs  he  offer  the  moil  daring  violence 
to  his  own  confcience.  And  vhat  fliali  I  fay  of  the 
glorious  contrivance  of  falvation,  through  the  Lord 
jrsus  our  only  Redeemer  ?  Should  I  touch  at  the 
ground-work  thereof  in  the  eternal  counfel  of  the  ador- 
able Trinity,  and  the  feveral  dilplays  of  it,  until  at 
length  the  complete  piirchafe  was  made  in  the  ful- 
iiefs  of  tioie  ;  and  if  1  fhould  but  glance  at  the  feve- 
ral firokes  of  omnipotent  power,  and  rich  mercy 
through  Chrifl,  by  vi^hich  the  purchafed  falvation  is  ef- 
fedually  applied  to  every  elect  perfon,  I  would  enter 
upon  a  neld  from  which  I  could  not  quickly  or  eafiiy 
get  off.  All  that  I  adventure  to  fay  is,  that  the  difco- 
veries  of  a  Deity  in  each  ilep  thereof,  are  fo  relucent 
and  full  of  glory,  that  the  being  of  the  material  light 
under  a  meridian  fun,  without  the  interpofition  of  a 
cloud,  may  as  well  be  denied,  as  thefe  great  truths  can 
be  difov/ned.  Beyond  all  manner  of  doubt,  they  con- 
tain matter  of  much  higher, and  more  glorious  evidence, 
ijpon  the  minds  of  all  thofe  whofe  eyes  the  god  of  this 
world  hath  not  blinded,  (2  Cor.  iv.  3,  4.  John  i.  5. 
Deut.  xxix.  4.)  Yet  ah!  mid-day  clearnefs  is  mid- 
night darknefs  to  thofe  who  have  not  eyes.  But  not  to 
infill :  If  v»'e  add  to  all  thefe,  the  full  hiftory  of  the  heart 
of  man,  in  the  depths  of  wickednefs  contained  in  that 
great  abyfs,  together  with  the  feveral  eruptions  thereof, 
both  open  and  violent,  as  alfo  fubtile  and  covered,  to- 
gether with  all  the  engines  of  temptations  for  fetting 
it  to  work,  and  keeping  it  flill  bufy  ;  if,  I  fay,  the  per- 
fect account  of  thefe  things  which  is  given  in  the  word, 

be 


VI  PREFACE. 

be  ferioufly  pondered,  who  can  efcape  the  convidion, 
that  He,  and  He  only  who  formed  tiie  Spirit  within 
him,  could  have  given  fuch  a  dilpiay.  From  all  this, 
I  would  bewail,  were  it  poflibic,  with  tears  of  blood, 
ihe  blafphenious  wickednefs  oi  thole,  who,  from  the 
grciTeft  darknefs  and  ignorance,  oppofe,  malign,  and 
deride  fuch  great  and  high  things.  But  it  is  enough; 
zvlfdo?n  is  jujiified  of  all  her  children^  Matth.  xi.  19. 
The  worthy  and  now  glorified  author  of  this  work,  had 
a  plentiful  meaiure,  beyond  many,  of  the  fureft:  and 
fweeteit  knowledge  of  theie  matters  :  his  foul,  (may  I 
fo  exprefs  it)  was  cad  into  the  blefled  mould  of  gof- 
pal  truih.  Wno  is  a  teacher  like  unto  God  !  Sure  an 
enlightening  work,  by  his  word  and  Spirit  upon  the 
foul,  filleth  it  with  evidence  of  a  more  excellent  na- 
ture, and  attended  with  a  penetrancy  quite  of  another 
kind,  than  any  mathematical  demonftration  can  amount 
to.  In  this  cafe,  the  foul  (2  Cor.  iii  3.)  is  an -epidle 
of  Jefus  Chriftj  wherein  thefe  great  truths  are  written 
by  himfelf,  in  characters  which  the  united  force. and 
fubtilties  of  hell  (hall  be  fo  far  from  deleting,  that  their 
it rongeit  efforts  fliall  render  the  impreiTions  ftiil  deep- 
er, and  more  vivid.  No  mathematical  demonftration 
can  vie  with  this:  forafmuch  as  the  authority  of  the 
God  of  truth,  that  conveys  bis  own  teftimony  into 
the  heart  with  a  ftrong  hand,  has  a  glory  and  evidence 
peculiar  to  iti'elf.  And  though  well  known  to  thofe 
who  enjoy  it,  yet  of  a  beauty  great  and  myfterious,  fuch 
as  the  tongues  of  men  and  angels  could  not  fuffice  to 
defcribe.  The  empty  cavils  of  that  execrable  herd  of 
blafphemous  Atheiiis,  or  Deiils,  as  they  would  be  cal- 
led, amount  to  a  very  fmal!  and  contemptible  account, 
feeing  the  moll  fubtile  of  them,  fall  very  far  fhort  of 
the  objections  which  unclean  fpirits  propofe,  and  urge 
in  a  way  of  temptation,  again  ft  perfons  exercifed  to 
^-;adlinef>;,   which  yet  the  Father    of   lights    difpelleth 

mercifully 


PREFACE. 


Vll 


mercifully  from  time  to  time,  and  maketh  thefe  dark 
fhadts  to  evanifb,  as  the  Sun  of  righteoufnefs  arifeth 
upon  the  foul  with  a  glory  and  evidence  ftill  upon  the 
afcendant,  Mai.  iv.  2.  Prov.  iv.  18.  Hof.  vi.  3.  Ne- 
veriheles,  the  learned  and  godly  avathor  hath  encoun- 
tered thefe  filJy  creatures  at  their  own  weapons,  both 
ofFen  fively  ard  defenfively,  and  to  fuch  excellent  pur- 
pofe,  as  needeth  not  my  poor  teftimony.  He  hath 
fearched  into  the  very  bottom  of  what  they  allege.  With 
great  and  unwearied  diligence  did  he  read  their  writ- 
ings carefully  from  the  very  firft  fprings,  and  hath  re- 
prefented  fairly  their  empty  cavils,  in  all  the  fbadows 
of  (Irength  they  can  be  alleged  to  have,  and  has  refut- 
ed them  plainly  and  copioufly.  On  which,  and  the 
like  accounts,  1  hope  the  work  will  be,  through  the  di- 
vine bleffing,  of  great  ufe  in  the  churches  of  Chrift. 


JAMES   HOG. 


TO 


TO   THE   PUBLIC. 

THOUGH  the  editors  will  not  prefume  to  offer  any  recdffi- 
mendation  of  the  enlliing  work  ;  yet  they  conceive  them- 
felves  juftifiable^  in  prefenting  to  the  public  the  fentinients  of 
fome  eminent  chara6ters  refpeding  it.  1  his  they  do  chieiiy  with 
a  view  to  obviate  an  objection  that  poffibly  may  ariie  in  the 
minds  of  fome,  viz.  That  it  is  not  adapted  to  the  prefent  Rate  of 
the  ccntroverfy  with  the  Deifts.  To  this  we  would  obferve, 
that  a  careflil  peruful  of  the  book  will  at  once  prove,  to  any 
perfon  acquainted  with  the  controverfy,  that  the  arguments  lat- 
terly produced  againft  divine  revelation,  are  in  fubftance  precifely 
the  fame  with  thofe  form.erly  advanced  by  Herbert  and  his  ad° 
herents,  with  whom  our  author  chiefly  contends.  And  that  he 
has  fully  fucceeded  in  this  conteft,  was  the  judgment  of  the  cele- 
brated Dr*  Watts*  He  here  **  proves,"  fays  the  Dr.  ^^  by  un-* 
^*  anfwcrable  arguments,  the  utter  ihfufficiency  of  the  Deiils^ 
*^  religion  for  the  falvation  of  men,  and  beats  them  fairly  at  their 
"  v;eapon3*i''     Dr.  John  Newton,  in  one  of  his  letters  to 

the  rev.  Mr.  S=^ ,  to  whom  he  had  fent  Mr.  Halyburton^s 

book  for  perufal,  thus  expreffes  his  fentiments  refpeding  it :  ^^  I 
'^  fct  a  high  value  upon  this  book  of  Mr.  Haly burton's  ;  fo 
**  that  unlefs  I  could  replace  it  with  another,  I  know  not  if  I 
*'  would  part  with  it  for  its  weight  in  gold.  The  firft  and  long- 
*'  eft  treatife,  (meaning  that  againft  the  Deifts)  is  in  my  judg- 
'^  ment  a  m.after-piece-j-.'^  Dr-  Jameison  of  Edinburgh,  who 
no  dcubt  will  be  allowed  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  prefent 
jtatt  of  the  controverfy,  in  a  late  publication,  having  occafion  to 
mention  Mr.  Hal\^ burton's  treatife,  fays.  It  is  *^  a  book  not  fur- 
**  pafied,  if  equalled,  by  any  of  the  numerous  antl-deifilcal  wnu 
''  inos  that  have  appeared  fmce  the  tim.e  of  its  publication  ;  and 
*'  v.diich  has  this  ipecial  excellency,  that  it  carries  the  war  into 
<^  caiVip  of  the  adveriary±.'' — — Eulogiums  cculd  be  multiplied, 
and  the  teftimonies  of  eminent  clergymen  in  this  country  produ- 
ced, v.ere  it  deemed  necelTary.  We  are  authorifed  in  faying^ 
that  it  has  the  decided  approbation  of  Dr.  NisbeT,  Prefident  of 
Jjickinfon  ColL-ge ;  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  tranllation 
of  the  Latin  quotations,  and  a  number  of  literal  corrections,  which 
much  increaiVe.  the  value  of  the  prefent  edition. 
Pkihidtiphwy  Feb'   1798. 

*  See  his  Recoirimendatioii  picf.::ed  to  Mr.  Halyburton's  Men-.oirs.  page  7^ 
of  P'lM'adelpblii  edition, 
t  Newton's  Letters,  vol.  T.  pag.  148,  Phi!ado!pliia  edition. 
\   Alarni  to  Britain,  pag.  25. 


SUBSCRIBERS^   NAMES 


L\EV.   James  Abei-cromble, 
minirter  of  the  Proteftant  E- 
pifcopal  ehureh,  Philadelphia. 
Rev.  John  Andenon,  minifterof 
the  Affociate  congregations  at 
Milr-creek  and   Harman's-cr, 
near    Pittfburgh 
Dr.  Henry  Arnot,  York  county 
I}r,  James  Armflrong,  Carlifle, 
Thomas  Aliifon,  ftud,  of  divinity 
Col.  Aliifon,  Philadelphia 
Mr.  Robert  Armflrong,  Juniata 
Abraham  Anderfon,  Carlifle 
James  Anderfon,  do 

.William  Alexander,     do 
Vv'illiam  Airkin,  Yci:k  cou. 
Alexander  Aliifon,       do 
Ja.  Agnew,  Ma^:(h  creek,  do 
J  no.  Aj>new,         do         do 
Thos.  Adams,  "Walh,  county 
Samuel  Agnevv,       do 
John  Afhton,Camb.  fN.Tj 
James  Afnton,     do 
John  Armitage,  do 
Archibald  Armftrong 

B 

Ktv.  Thomas  Eeveridge,  Cam- 
bridge, fN.  T.J 
Mr.  George  Barber,     do 
Mrs.  Hannah  Barton,  fK  J.) 
Lewis  Berry,        do 
Robert  Boyd,      do 
James  Buchanan,  Wafhing- 
ton  county 


Mr.  Evert  Bufn,  New- York 
John  Pennie,         do 
Alexander  Bradley,  Carlifle 
James  Blaine,  6.<:i 

Charles  Bovard,  do 

William  Brcrden,ftudent,do 
John   Brov.'n,  W^eft   Pennf- 

borough  townfliip 
Randel  Blair,     do 
David   Blaine,    Big-fpringj 

2  copies 
James  Brown,     do 
John  Brown,      do 
Andtew  Bran  wood,  Marlh- 

creek,  York  county 


Rev.  Ja;r,es  Clark fon,  York  cc. 
Rev^.    William    Clarkfon,    near 
Bridgetown,  fI\',J,J  i  z  copies 
Mr.  Abraham  Craig,  A.  B.  Big^ 
fpiing 
John  Creigh,  Carlifle 
Thomas  Graigliead,  do 
James    Chrifw,  11,     Lev/is 

townfliip,  MiSin  county 
James  Conchy,  FhiladeU 
James  Creng  do 

Michael  Cc>:rodi     do 
Alexander  Caflel,  Wafii.  co^ 
P.andc!  Cowden,  do 

Samuel  Cald^vell,         do 
Andrew  Chriftie,  N.  York 
AlexC'i'ider  Cunningham, 
merchant,  Wafii.  (Fen.) 

c 


SUBSCRIBERS'     NAMES. 


Mr,  John   Cunningham,    Dela- 
ware county 
William  Collins,  "Vork  co. 
Samuel  Cr.lilns  do 

John  Collins,  do 

D 

Rer.Jchn  Dunlap,Camb.  ^V.^'*.; 
Jonathan  Dorr,   phyiiclan,  do 
Rev,  Robert  Davidfon,   D.  D, 
miRifter     of    the   Prefbyterian 
church,     Carlille 
James  Duncan,  preacher  of  the 

gofjjel 
Mr,  Thomas  Dick,  New- York 
Hugh  Dodd,  Philadelphia 
Ja.  Duncan,  Carlifle 
'IhoiTias    Duncan,  attorney 

at  law,     do 
Robert  Dawfon^  Wafh.  co. 
John  Donaiiifon,  Norihuiu, 


Rev.  John  Ewing,  D.  D.  pador 
of  the  firft  Prefbyterian  church, 
Philadelphia 
Mr.  Benjamin  Egbert,  N.  York 
James    Edmifton,     Lewis- 
town,  Miffiin  county 
Peter  Eifenbray,  Philad. 

F 

Mr.  Alexander  Fridge,  Yhlhd, 
James  Furze,  do 

John  Frirth,  Salem,  rN.J.J 
John  Forfythe,  Carlide 
Samuel    Fullerton,    York 
county 

G 

Rev.  Albbel  Green,  D.  D.  paf- 
tor  of  the  fecond  Prefbyterian 
church,   Philadelphia 

Rev.  David  Goodwille,  Earner, 

fVermofJt) 
Mr.  Samuel  Gufline,  Carliile 
Francis  Gibibn,       do 


Mr.  George  Gofrnan,  N.  York 
12  copies 
Jacob  Grove,  York  county 
Thomas  Grove,     do 
Alexander  Govvens,     do 
Gaion  Grier,  Waui.  county 

H 

Pvcv.  Matthew  Hcnderion,  Alle- 
gany county 

Davijd  HaySjllud.atlaw,  Carlifle 

Thomas   Kainilton,    lludent    of 
divinity,  Wafh In^e^.  co. 

Mr.  J  no.  Hughes,  Carlifle 
Robert  Huiton,  do 
Peter  H  art  rick,  New-Y'ork 
Cornelius  C.  Hoffman,  do 
David  Hall,  Philadelphia 
James  Hogan,     do 
Samuel  Harper,  York  co. 
Hugh  Hcnderfon,     do 
Jofeph  n  a  mil  ton,     do 
Ebenezer  Henderfon,  -do 
Alex.  Hcnderfcn,Wafh.  co. 
Ezekial  Hill,  Monrgom.co. 
John  Hsys,         do 
AmafaHinchlev,Cari)bridge 

fN^.  r.) 

James  Hoy,     do 


Mr.  James  Irwin,  Cumb.  county 
William  Innes,  PhiladeL 
Johjii  Johnflon,      do. 

K 

William  Kef  fey,  Chief  Jddoe  of 

Steuben  cou-nt)-,  {N,  T.f 
Mr.  /Andrew  Kevan,  New- York 
David  Kempton,  Carlifle 
John  Kemen,  Wafhing.  co. 


Rev.  John  Linn,  Shearman'sVal- 

ley^ 
Mif.  VVrn.  Liggar,  fen.  York  co. 


SUBSCRIBERS'     NAMES, 


Mr^  Francis  Linch,  New-York 
Samuel  Longcope,  Philad. 
Archibald  Loudon,  CMflifle 
Vv  Mliam  Lyon,  do 

James  Lamberton,       do 
Saaiuel  Laird,  do 

Philip  K.  Laurence,     do 
John  Lecky,  Norihura.  co, 

M 
Rev.   Samuel   Magaw,    D.    D, 
reflior   of  Sr,   Paul's   church, 
Philadelphia 
Rev.  WiJIiam  MarOiall,  A.  M. 
minifter  of  theAfibciate  church 
Philadelphia 
Rev,  John   iVlafon,  New- York 

12  copies 
James  M'Cormick,  profefTor  of 
mathemacicks    in    Dickinfon 
College 
John  Montgomery,  Efq.  Carlifle 
Samuel  Murdoch,  ftad.  of  divi- 
nity, Waihing.  county 
John  M'Phcrfon,  Efq.  Norlhui-n, 
Dr.  Sam.  A.  M'Cofey,  Carlifle 
James  Magiil,  A.  B,  near  MifHin 
town 
^      Mr.  barauel  Mill/r,  (N,  T.J 
lo  copies 
John  M'Clellan,  do 
Alexander  M'Donald,  Nor, 

thumberland,   2  copies 
William  Mack}-,  do 

Robert  M'Neal,  do 

John  M'Alliiler,  Philadel, 
John  M^Ara^         do 
Andrew  M'Ara,     do 
Andrew  M'Calla,  da 
Robert  rvjillikin,  do 
William  W.  Moore,  do 
John  M'CleHCchan,  do 
Walter  Mickeljohn,  do 
James  M'G lathery,  do 
Peter  M<Kachan,  N.  York 
Daniel  M'Lauren,     do 


Mr.  Andrew  Mitchell,  Carlifle 
William  MCluer,  do 
Andrew  Munro,     do 
William  Moore,     da 
Alex.  M'Kechan,  jun.  do 
William  M'Craken,      do 
Hugh  M'Cormick,  Rear  do 
Pi  ugh  Morrifon,  York  co. 
Andrew  Martin,         do 
Robert  MClellan,     do 
David  Mdellan,     do 
Frederick  M-Pherfon,  do 
John  Main,  i^hippeniburgh 
James  M<Nary,  Walh.  co. 
Samuel  M'Bride,         do 
Samuel  M^Gov.'en,      do 
John  MCall,  do 

Henry  Maxwell,  do 
James  Morrifon,  do 
Charles  Moore,  do 

James  M'Keman,  do 
James  Marfhall,  do 

Samuel  Marihall,        do 

N 
Rev.  Charles  Nilbet,  D.D.  Pre 

fidcnt  of  Dickinfon,  Carlifle 
Mr,  John  Noble,  do 

O 

Mr,  Jacob  Orwitt,  Cambridge, 

(N,  r,j 

Robert  Oliver,      do 
William  Ouells,     do 


Rev.  Samuel  Porter,  minifter  at 
Congruity  and  Poke  run,Weil- 
rnoreland,  near  Pitlhurgh 
Robert  Patterfon,  profeflbr  of 
inathemaiicks  in  theUniverfity 
of  Pennfylvania 
Mrs.  Mary  Patron,  Carlifle, 

3  copies 
Mr'  George  Paitifon,  Carlifle 
Charles  Pauifon,     do 
James  Paxton,  near  do 


SUBSCRIBERS'    NAMES. 


Mr.  fames  Peden,  York  county 
Archibald  Purdie,     do 
James  Philips,  Philadelphia 
Charles  Pettit  do 

Hugh  Patton,  Wafhing.  co. 


Kev.  William  Rogers,  D.  D.  pro- 
fefibr  of  Englifh  'and  Oratory, 
in  theUniverfiiy  of  Pennfyi, 

Mrs.  Mary  Rca,  Philadelphia 
Frances  Pvcid,  Carlille 

Mr.  Archibald  Kainfej;,     do 
James  Robcrticn,  N.  York 
Thomas  Rohertion,    do 
Sia.on  PvofssHopeweli  town 

{hipj  <^umb=  county 
Ifaac  Ralilon,  Philadelphia 
Samuel  Rofeburgh,  York  co. 
David  Reed,     "       do 
James  Raliton.  Wafnw  co. 
Andrew  Ruffel,     do 
James  Ruffe!,         do 
John  Reznor,  Northumb. 


Rev.  Thomas  Smith 

John  Steele,  A.  B.  Carlifle 

Snovvden  &  M*CorkIe,  printers, 

Philadelphia 
Mr.  John  Scotland,  New- York 
1  copies 
Jamas  Small,  Camb.  fN,T.J 
Alexander  bkelly,     do 
Vv^iilium  Story 
Henry  Sclieetz,  Montg.  co. 
Juftus  Scheetz,  do 

Woolry  Slaughter,  do 
Jeremiah  ::impfon,Wafb.co. 
John  StrLither>s,  fen.  do. 
John  Struthers,  jun»  do 
Robert  Simpfon,         do 
William  Smiley,  Philadel. 
John  Smith,  Big-fpring  near 
Cariine 


Mr.  James  Stirling,  flore-keepcr 
P/jrlington 
Eiillia  Steele,  Carlifle 


William  Thcmpfon,   teacher  of 
languages  in   Dickhu^on  Col- 
lege, Carlifle 
Samuel  Tate,  teacher  of  Eng.  do.- 
Mr.  Archibald  Tompfon,  Frank- 
lin county 
Andrew  Thomfon,  do 
John  Thorapfon,      do 
Jofeph  Thompfon,York  co. 
Samuel  Tagart,  WaPn.  co. 
John  Tagart,  do 

James  Ihompfon,   Philad. 

U 

Rev.  Thomas  Uftick,  minifter  of 
the  Bapiiil  church,  Philadel. 

W  \ 

Rev,    Samuel  Waugh,    Silver- 

.  .Spring 

WiiiiamWilfon,  preacher  of  the 
gofpei 

David   Watts,   attorney  at  law, 
Carlifle 

Jonathan  Walker,  Efq-Northum. 

Mr.  William  Wiifon,    .        do 
David  Walker,  Cumb.  co, 
John  Wright,  Carlifle 
,      John  Walker,     do 

A  nd  row  Wright,Ne  w  -  York 
Charles  Whyte,  Philadel, 
William  Wear,         do 
David  Wallace,  York  coun. 
Alexander  Wallace,  do 
John  Wiifon,  jun.     do 
John  White,  Wafliing.  co. 
Andrew  V/hite,  Cambridge 

Y 

Mr,  Jofeph  Young,  Carlifle 
Stephen  Young,  Philadel, 


d^  The  following  names  came  too  late  for  infertion  in  their  pro-* 

per  place,  , 

From  Camb,  and Argyhy  (N»  T.J 

From  Northumberland,  (Fenn,) 

Dr.  Andrew  Proudfit 

William  Reid,  Efq. 

William  P.  Brady,  Efq. 

yiu  John  Reid 

Mr 

.  John  Cowden 

James  Beatie 

John  Wilfon 

John  Gilchrift 

Daniel  Reea 

Peter  M<Euchron 

Peter  Jones 

John  Herflia 

Mordecai  M'Kay 

John  Millar 

William  Reynolds 

Finley  M^Naughton 

James  Shaddon 

John  White 

Jared  Irwin 

Archibald  M'Neal 

William  Murray 

John  M'Neal 

James  Armftrong 

William  Robertfon 

Ifaac  Hannah 

Roger  Campbell 

John  Jones 

Duncan  M*Arthur 

And  re  A^  Kenne«ly 

Cafpcrus  Baine 

David  Steel 

Daniel  Mothiefon 

Thomas  Walfon 

*/  The  binder  is  direded  to 

place 

thefe  immediately  after  the 

laft  page  of  the  Subfcribers*  Names, 


„><     •   X  i 


g^  ^KrEWBKWBac=aBea:»s»a=iB«as3aE^  ==-==«^2 


TO     THE     READER. 


Meader, 

WHOEVER  thou  art,  the  queftion  agitated  In 
the  enfuing  difcourfe  is  that  wherein  thou  had 
a  coniiderable  concernment.  If  thou  art  a  Chriiiian, 
the  enfuing  difcourfe  is  defigned  to  juftify  thy  refufal 
of  that  religion  which  has  now  got  a  great  vogue 
amongft  tholie  gentlemen,  who  fet  up  for  the  only  wits, 
and  aim  at  monopolizing  reafon,  as  if  they  alone  were 
the  peorle,  and  wifdom  was  io  die  witJo  them.  They  cry 
up  their  religion  as  the  only  reafonable  religion,  and 
traduce  all  who  will  not  join  with  them,  as  credulous 
and  unreafonable  men.  Whereas,  on  the  contrary,  no 
man  that  ufes  his  reafGn,  can  clofe  with  that  which 
ihey  would  obtrude  on  us  as  rational  religion  :  nor  can 
any  man,  without  being  guilty  of  the  fondeft  credulity, 
venture  his  falvation  upon  this  modern  Paganifm,  that 
it^ruts  abroad  under  the  modilli  name  of  Deifm^  which 
I  nope  the  enfuing  difcourfe  will  evince;  wherein  it 
is  made  appear,  that  the  light  of  nature  is  utterly  in/uf- 
ficient  io  an/wer  the  great  ends  of  religion^  and  that  con- 
fequentiy  we  had  the  jufteft  reafon  in  the  world,  if  there 
were  none,  to  wilh  for  a  revelation  from  God,  as  what 
is  of  abfolute  neceiTity   to  our  happinefs ;  and  fince 

there 


xiv  TO    THE    R  E  A  D  E  R. 

there  is  one,  with  the  greated  thankfulnefs  to  embrace 
it,  cleax'e  to  it,  and  comply  with  it. 

Reader,  if  thou  hail  thy  religion  yet  to  choofe,  which 
J  aai  afraid  is  too  common  a  cafe  in  this  unftable 
ijge,  then  it  is  high  time  thou  wert  bethinking  thyfelf 
of  religion  in  earneft. 

To-morrow  thou  wilt  live,  thou  ftill  doft  fay; 
To-day's  too  lare,  the  wife  liv'd  yeilerday. 

And  if  after  too  long  a  delay  thou  mean  to  avoid  au 
unhappy  choice,  reafon  advifes  thee  to  confider  weil^ 
that  when  the  choice  is  made,  care  be  taken  to  make 
it  fo,  as  to  prevent  the  neceffity  either  of  a  fecond 
choice,  or  a  too  late  repentance  for  choofing  amifs. 
1  here  is  a  fet  of  men,  who  cry  up  at  this  day  natural 
religion,  and  efpecially  commend  it  to  fnch  as  have  no 
religion.  It  is  fuch  as  thou  art  that  they  defire  to  deal 
with,  and  among  fuch  it  is  that  they  are  mod  fuccefs- 
ful.  But  if  thou  hail  a  mind  not  to  be  deceived  in  a 
matter  of  fuch  moment,  it  imports  thee  not  a  little  to 
confider  what  may  be  faid  againft  that,  which  it  is 
likely  may  be  offered  thee,  as  a  fine,  modifli,  reafon- 
able  religion,  meet  for  a  gentle7nan,  a  man  of  wit  and 
reafon,  I  have  here  offered  to  prove  this  all  to  be  faid 
without,  yea  againft  reafon  and  experience.  Well,  firft 
hear  and  then  judge,  and  after  that  choofe  or  refufe 
as  thou  feeft  caufe. 

As  for  the  management  of  this  ufeful  inquiry,  it  is 
Vv'holly  fuited  to  that  which  at  firft  was  only  defigned, 
viz.  the  fatisfadion  of  tbe  writer's  own  mind  about 
the  queftion  that  is  here  propofed.  I  entered  not  up- 
on this  inquiry  with  a  view  to  oppofe  any  man,  or  tri- 
umph over  adverfaries,  and  fo  did  induftrioufly  wave 
thole  catches,  fubtilties,  and  other  nicities,  ufed  fre- 
quently by  writers  of  controverfy.^  My  only  defign 
was  to  fnid  the  truth,  and  therefore  1  chofe  clearly  to 

ftate 


TO     THE     READER.  xv 

ftate  the  qiieftion,  which  I  found  the  Deifts  always  a- 
voided,  and  plainly  propofe  my  reafons  for  that  fide  of 
it  I  took,  after  trial,  to  be  the  truth.  As  to  the  op- 
pofite  opinion,  I  made  it  my  bufmefs  to  make  a  dili- 
gent inquiry  into  the  ftrongeft  arguments  advanced 
for  it,  candidly  to  propofe  them  in  their  utmoft  force, 
and  clofely  to  anfwer  them  ;  avoiding,  as  much  as 
might  be,  fuch  reproaches  as  are  unworthy  of  a  Chrif- 
tian,  or  an  inquirer  after  truth,  though  I  met  with  fre^ 
q»ent  provocation,  and  found  fometimes  how  true  that 
is,  Difficile  tji  non  fcrihere  faiyrani  contra  fatytiwi  '*. 

It  was  not  am.ufement  I  aim.ed  at,  or  to  pleafe  my 
©wn  fancy,  or  tickle  the  reader's  ears  with  a  gingle  of 
words,  or  divert  aud  bias  the  judgment  by  a  flood  of 
rhetorick,  I  never  defigned  to  fet  up  for  an  orator. 
My  b^finefs  lies  quite  another  way,  it  is  what  I  lay  no 
claim  to,  and  what  I  think  is  to  be  avoided  in  difcourfes 
of  this  kind.  All  1  aimed  at  as  to  language,  w^as  to 
clothe  my  thoughts  in  plain  and  intelligible  expref- 
fions.  The  reader  is  to  expect  no  more,  and  if  he 
mifs  this  I  hope  it  will  be  but  rarely- 

It  is  not  to  be  expeded,  that  a  diicourfe  which  was 
begun  in  an  inverted  order,  the  middle  part  being  firft 
writ ;  and  that  was  compofed  in  the  intervals  of  bufi- 
nefs  of  a  very  different  nature,  at  (pare  hours,  by  one 
of  no  gre-^t  experience,  and  an  ucter  llranger  to  w-ri- 
tings  of  this  fort,  (I  all  be  free  of  biemifiies  that  may 
offend  nicer  palates.  Some  few  repetitions  could  nor, 
at  lead:  without  more  pains  in  tranfcribing  than  I  had 
either  leifure  or  inclination  for,  well  be  avoided.  Nor 
could  a  difcourfe  fo  often  interrupted  by  other  bufmefs, 
and  upon  fo  very  different  fubjeQs,  be  carried  on  with 
that  equality  of  itile  that  v/ere  to  be  wifbed,  efpecially 
by  Gue  who  was  never  over  much  an  affedter  of  elegan- 

"  cy 
*  **  It  is  diiFicult  not  co  writea  fatjr  againft  mtyr." 


xvi  T  O    T  H  E    R  E  A  D  E  R. 

cy  of  language.  In  a  word,  the  work  is  long,  much 
longer  than  I  defigned  ;  and  yet  without  wionging  the 
iubjed,  at  leaft  as  I  am  othervvife  fituated  and  engaged, 
I  could  not  eafily  (liorten  it.  li  he  pleales  to  inioect 
the  book,  he  may  poffibly  find,  that  I  had  reafon  for 
iRfifling  at  the  length  I  have  done.  However,  every 
one  has  not  his  art,  who  could  enclofe  Homer's  Iliads 
in  a  niu's  fhell. 

I  am  fenfible,  that  what  I  have  difcourfed  in  the  iird 
chapter  of  the  enfuing  treatife,  concerning  ttiQ  Occajt^ns 
of  De'ifm^  will  grate  bard  upon  a  {^i  of  men,  who  hava 
for  many  years  bygone  carried  ail  before  them,  and 
fo  took  it  ill  to  have  any  cenfures  bedowed  on  them., 
though  they  did  feverely  animadvert  upon  the  real  or 
fuppofed  faults  of  others.  As  to  this  I  have  not  much 
to  fay  by  v;ay  of  apology.  That  Deifm  has  fprung  up 
and  grows  apace  amongft  us,  is  on  all  hands  confeifed* 
Others  have  offered  their  conjedures  concerning  the  oc- 
cafions  of  its  increafe.  Why  I  might  not  oiler  niy  opi- 
nion alfo,  1  know  no  reafon.  '1  he  principal  fuhject  of 
the  enfuing  treatife  fuffers  riot,  though  I  fiiould  herein 
be  millaken.  i\\  propofing  my  conjecture  1  did  notpur- 
fu£  the  intereii"  of  any  party  ;  but  have  freely  blanked  all. 
parties,  if  the  fticklers  for  the  Arminian  or  Socinian 
divinity  are  touched,  it  was  becaufe  I  thought  they  were 
to  be  blamed,  and  therefore  I  have  withllood  them  to 
their  face.  As  to  the  tendency  of  their  principles  I 
have  been  fparing,  becaufe  that  debate  has  \^K^.tVi  fuiiici- 
ently  agitated  in  the  Low  Countries  betwixt  the  con- 
tending parties.  The  reader  who  would  be  fatisfied  as 
to  this,  may  perufe  thofe  who  have  direclly  managed 
this  charge,  and  the  aniv/ers  that  have  been  made,  and 
judge  upon  the  whole  matter  as  he  finds  caufe*.     But 

whatever 

*  See  Arcana  Arminianifnij,  by  Vicleaus,  ;md  Vi-jelius  Roprodiis. 
With  Videlius's  Rf-joinders,  <?  c. 


TO    THE    READER.  xvu 

whatever  may  be  as  to  this,  the  manner  of  their  ma* 
nagement  may  perhaps  be  found  lefs  capable  of  a  colour- 
able defence.  And  it  is  upon  this  that  I  have  principally 
infilled.  To  oppofe,  efpecially  from  the  pulpit, with  con^ 
tempt,  buffoonry,  banter  and  fatyr,  principles,  that  fober 
perfons  of  the  fame  perfuafion  do  own  to  have  at  leaft  a 
very  plaufible  like  foundation  in  the  word  of  God, 
and  which  have  been,  for  near  fixty  or  feventy  years  af- 
ter the  reformation,  the  confVant  doctrine  of  the  fathers, 
and  fons  of  the  church  of  England,  and  have  by  them 
been  inferted  into  her  articles,  and  fo  become  a  part  of 
her  doctrine*,  is  a  praclice  that  I  do  not  well  underiland 
how  to  excufe,  or  free  from  the  imputation  of  profanity, 
and  which  hath  too  manifeft  a  tendency  to  Atheifm,  to 
admit  of  any  tolerable  defence.  The  fcriptures,  and 
truths,  that  have  any  countenance  in  them,  or  opinions 
which  they  feem  really  to  perfons  otherwife  fober,  pious 
and  judicious,  not  only  to  teach,  but  to  inculcate  as  of* 
the  higheft  importance,  are  not  a  meet  fubjecl  for  raille- 
ry ;  nor  is  the  pulpit  a  meet  place  for  it.  This  is  that  for 
which  principally  I  have  blamed  them,  and  this  I  cannot 
retrad.  If  they  take  this  ill,  I  afk  them,  Have  not 
others  as  much  reafon  to  take  it  ill,  that  the  doclrines  of 
the  church  of  England  taught  in  her  articles  and  homi- 
lies, and  profeffed  by  her  learned  billiops,  who  compo- 
fed  them,  and  by  her  fons  for  fo  long  a  trad  of  time,  as 
confonant  to,  found  in,  and  grounded  on  the  v/ord  of 
God,  (hould  be  fo  petulantly  traduced  by  wit,  raillery^ 
and  declamatory  invedives  from  prefs  and  pulpit ;  and 
that  too  by  thofe  who  have  fubfcribed  to  thefe  articles 
and  homilies  ?  This  managiement  has  been  complained 
of  by  fober  perfons  of  all  parties,  churchmen  and  dif- 
fenters,  contra-remonftrants  and  remonftrants  too,  as  I 
could  make  appear,  if  there  were  occafion  for  it :  And 

D  why 

*  See  Bifhop  of  Sarum  on  the  Articles;  Preface,  pag.  7,  S* 


XViil 


TO   THE   READER. 


why  I  might  not  alfo  complain,  I  want  yet  to  be  inform- 
ed. None  is  charged  fave  the  guilty.  Others  who  are 
free  have  no  reafon  to  be  angry.  And,  perhaps,  they 
who  will  be  offended  at  this,  would  fcarce  have  been 
pleafed  if  I  had  let  it  alone. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  this  treatife,  I  have  oppofed 
the  opinion  that  afferts  the  Heathen  world  to  be  under 
a  government  of  grace.  I  know  it  is  maintained  by 
many  learned  men  both  at  home  and  abroad,  from 
whofe  memory,  if  dead,  or  juft  refpecl,  if  alive,  I  de- 
figned  not  to  detract.  Nor  did  I  defign  to  lid  them  with 
the  Deifls,  whom  I  know  to  have  been  folidly  oppofed 
by  feverals  that  were  of  this  opinion.  But  yet  I  do  think 
the  opinion  itfeif  deftitute  of  any  folid  foundation,  with 
ail  deference  to  them,  who  think  otherwife,  either  in 
fcriptw^re,  reafon  or  experience.  And  I  am  further  of 
the  mind,  that  the  learned  abettors  of  it,  had  never  em- 
braced an  affertion,  that  expofes  them  to  fo  many  per- 
plexing^ difficulties,  and  puts  them  upon  a  necellity  of 
ufmgfo  many,  I  had  almofl  faid,  unintelligible  diftinc- 
tions  for  its  fupport,  if  they  had  not  been  driven  to  it 
by  fome  peculiar  hypothefis  in  divinity  which  they  have 
feen  meet  to  embrace.  If  any  intend  to  prove  what  I 
have  denied,  I  wiOi  it  jiiay  be  done  by  proper  argu- 
ments, diredly  proving  it,  and  not  by  advancing  an  hy- 
porhefis  that  remotely  infers  it^  and  which,  in  itfeif,  or, 
at  lead  as  propofed  by  thofe  whom  [have  met  with,  is  fo 
darkened  by  a  huge  multitude  of  fubtile,  myfterious 
and  uncouth  diftinclions,  that  I  can  fcarce  ever  project 
fo  much  lime  as  to  underdand  them.  Flov/ever  this 
much  I  mud  fay,  that  fo  crofs  does  this  opinion  feem  to 
fcripture,  reafon  and  experience,  that  it  will  go  a  very 
great  wav  to  weaken  the  credit  of  any  hypothefis  on  which 
it  inevirahly  follows.  However,  I  hope  this  may  be  faid, 
and  diiferent  opinions  about  this  point  without  any 
breach  of  charity  may  be   retained.      Diver/urn  fen^ 

tire 


TOTHEREADER.  xix 

tire  duos  de  rebus  i'lfdem  incolumi  licuit femper  amicUia* .  I 
know  the  abettors  of  this  opinion  are  hearty  friends  in 
the  main  tc  the  caufe  I  here  maintain. 

The  fcheme  I  have  in  the  clofe  of  that  chapter  offer- 
ed by  way  of  digreflion,  of  God*s  government  of  the 
Heathen  world,  is  not  defigned  as  a  full  account  of  that 
matter,  which  as  to  many  of  its  concernments,  is  of 
ihofe  things  that  are  not  revealed,  and  fo  belong  not  to- 
us ',  much  iefs  is  it  defigned  to  be  the  ground  of  a  pe^ 
remptory  judgment  as  to  the  eternal  (late  of  them,  who 
are  without  the  church :  But  only  to  (hew,  that  any 
thing  we  certainly  know  as  to  God's  dealings  wuh  them, 
in  the  common  courfe  of  his  providence,  may,  upon 
other  fuppofitions  and  principles,  befide  that  rejected, 
be  accounted  for.  The  judicious  and  fober  reader  may 
judge  of  ic  as  he  fees  caufe.  I  hope  I  have,  in  a  matter 
of  fuch  difficulty,  avoided  any  unbecoming  curiofity, 
or  affecting  to  be  wife  above  what  is  written. 

If  any  blame  me  for  the  multitude  of  quotations,  I 
anfwer,  the  fubjed  I  undertook  rendered  this  unavoid- 
able. I  have  ufed  the  utmoft  candor  in  them.  ^  Some» 
times  out  of  a  regard  to  brevity  I  have  avoided  the 
tranflation  of  teftimonies  quoted  from  authors  who  writ 
in  a  different  language.  Ihe  learned  will  not  complain 
of  this :  And  if  any  perfon  of  tolerable  judgment,  who 
is  not  learned,  will  be  at  pains  to  perufe  the  enfuing  dif- 
courfe,  he  will  find  as  much  faid,  without  regarding 
thofe  quotations,  as  may  fatisfy  his  mind  upon  this 
fubjedt. 

As  to  what  I  have,  in  the  enfuing  papers  afcribed,  to 
Mr.  Gildon  publifher  of  the  Oracles  of  Reafon,  I  had 
written  it  before  I  underftood  his  recover)-^  from  Deifm, 
But  yet  1  thought  it  not  meet  to  alter  it,  becaufe  there 

are 

+  "  It  was  always  allowed,  that  two  perfons  might  think  differently 
«  of  the  fame  things,  without  breach  of  friendihip,'* 


XX  T  O    T  H  E    R  E  A  D  E  R. 

arc,  no  doubt,  many  others  who  entertain  the  fame  no^ 
tions  be  then  did  maintain,  and  my  oppofition  is  to  the 
principles  and  not  the  perfons.  As  for  his  recovery,  I 
congratulate  it,  and  wifli  it  may  be  fuch  as  may  fecure 
hin^i  from  after-reckoning  for  the  hurt  he  has  done. 

If  any  DeiRs  (hall  fee  meet  to  undertake  this  debate, 
I  decline  it  not.  If  they  treat  my  book  as  they  have 
done  thofe  of  others,  every  way  my  fuperiors,  and  as 
Tats  are  wont  to  do,— gnaw  only  the  outfide,  divert  to  in- 
cident things  that  are  not  to  the  purpofe,  and  fmgle  out 
rather  what  feems  exceptionable  than  what  is  of  moment, 
following  him  who  did  fo. 


Defbcrat  tra6lata  nitefcere  pojje  relinquit  *> 

I  have  fomewhat  t\{Q  to  do,  than  to  take  any  notice  of 
fuch  impertinency.  If  any  fliall  offer  a  folid  and  ra- 
tonal  confutation,  which  yet  I  am  not  much  afraid  of, 
and  convince  me,  not  by  jeif,  buffoonry  and  railleryj 
but  by  folid  arguments,  of  my  being  in  a  miftake, 

Cuftfia  recantaho  n'.alediSiai   priora  repe^idam 
LaudibuSi   ^  'vefirum  iiomen  in  ajira  feram  \„ 


*  'f  And  leaves  out  whatever  he  defpairs  of  being  able  to  fhine  in 
<«  if  they  vi^erc  touched  on." 

f  *<  1  will  recant  all  my  reproaches,  I  will  make  amends  for  my  for- 
»<  mer  Danders  by  praifes^  and  will  exalt  your  name  to  the  ftars," 


INDEX. 


I    N    D    E    X, 


I 


NTRODUCTION,  -  -  Page  41 

[Wherein  it  is  proved  a  vmtter  of  the  highelt  import  and  nece/fty 
to  77iake  a  fight  choice  of  religion  ;  and  zvherein  2t  is  juriher 
evinced^  that  no  man  without  the  moji  mamfe/i  violence  to  rta^ 
Jon,  can  turn  Heathen^  Mahometan,  or  acquiefce  in  Aihe.ijm 
or  Sepncifm,  and  that  confequently  fvery  man  mvft  acquiefce 
in  the  Scriptures^  0^  turn  Deijt.  This  latf^'r  uvder'ak-..>  to  he 
demonfiiated  falfe  and  ruining, — Th^  author  s  inducements  to 
this  undertaking,] 

CHAP.     I. 

Giving  a  Jhort  account  of  the  rife,  occafions,  and  progrefs  of 
Dei/m^  efpe daily  in  Fn gland \  the  op  nions  oj  the  Deifls  ;  the 
different  forts  of  Deijis,  mortal  and  immortal,  61 

C  H  A  P.     II. 

Mortal  Deifls  whOf  and  what  judgment  to  he  made  of  them  and 
their  fentimentSi  -  -  76 

CHAP.     111. 

Wherein  the  controverfy  betwixt  us  and  the  Immortal  Deifls  is 
fated  and  cleared,  -  «  g^ 

CHAP.     IV. 

Wherein  the  infiifficiency  of  natural  religion  is  proved  from  the 
infiifficiency  oj  its  difcoveries  of  a  Deity  ^  -  "^  88 

C  H  A  P.     V. 

Proving  the  infujficiency  of  natural  jeligionfrom  its  defcBivenefs 
as  to  the  worfhip  of  God,  -^  -  106 


xxii  INDEX. 

CHAP.     VI. 

Proving  the  infufficiency  of  natural  religion  from  its  deJeEHvc" 
nefs  as  to  the  difcovery  wherein  7nans  happmefs  lies,  112 

CHAP.     VII. 

Natures  light  affords  not  a  fufficient  rule  of  duty.     Its  injuf- 
Jiciency  hence  inferred,  -  -  127 

CHAP.     VIII. 

Proving  the  infufficiency  of  natural  religion  from  its  defeBs  as 
to  fiifficicnt  motives  for  enforcing  obedience,  138 

CHAP.     IX. 

Shewing  the  importance  of  knowing  the  origin  of  fin  to  the  worlds 
and  the  defedivenefs  of  nature's  light  as  to  this,  147 

CHAP.     X. 

Proving  nature's  light  unable  to  dif cover  the  means  of  obtaining 
pardon  oj  finy  or  to  fhew  that  it  is  attainable,  161 

Sect.  I.  The  importance  of  this  difficulty  ftated,  162 

Sect.  II.  Shewing  the   darknefs   of  nature  s  light  as  to 
pardon,  -  -  171 

Sect.  III.  Wherein  it  is   inquired   whether  repentance  is 
fufficient  to  atone  for  fin  "/  How  far  nature's  light  ena- 
bles  to  It  ?  What  affiurance  nature  s  light  gives  of  par- 
don upon  repentance?  17S 

Objections  confdered,  -  -  209 

Digression  concerning  God's  government   of  the  Heathen 

zuorld,fiewing  that  there  is  nothing  in  it  whence  any  dc" 

fign  of  God  to  pardon  them  may  he  certainly  inferred,  23S 

C  H  A  P.     XI. 

Proving  the  inftiffiiciency  oJ  natural  religion  to  era  die  ate  our  iw 
clinations  to  jin,  or  fubdue  its  power,  248 

CHAP.     XII. 

Wherein  the  proof  of  the  infufficiency  of  natural  religion  is  con- 
cluded Jrom  a  general  view  of  the  experience  of  the  worlds  26© 


INDEX.  xxiii 

CHAP.     XIII. 

Wherein  tog  make  atranfition  to  theDeiJls  pleas  for  their  opinion  ^ 
and  take  particular  notice  of  the  Articles  to  which  thzy  reduce 
their  catholick  religion  ;  give  fame  account  of  Baron  Herbert, 
the  frfi  iriventer  of  this  catholick  religion,  his  Books,  and 
particularly  of  that  which  is  infcribed  De  Religione  Gcntili- 
lium,  as  to  the  matter  and  f cope  of  it,  and  the  importance 
of  what  is  therein  attempted  to  the  Dezjis'  caufe,  ^66 

CHAP.     XIV. 

Wherein  it  is  inquired,  Whether  Herbert  has  proved  that  his  Five 
Articles  did  univerfally  obtain ^  -  278 

C  H  A  P.     XV. 

Wherein  it  is  made  appear  that  Herbert's  Five  Articles  did  not 
univerfally  obtain^  -  -  306 

CHAP.     XVI. 

Wherein  fo  me  general  con  ft  derations  are  laid  dozen  for  proving 
that  many  of  the  bejl  things,  which  are  to  be  met  with  in  the 
Heathens,  were  not  the  dif cover ies  of  nature  s  lights  but  came 
from  tradition,  -  -  327 

CHAP.     XVII. 

Wherein  we  confider  what  Herbert  s  opinion  was  as  to  thefuffcien- 
cy  of  his  Articles,  and  offer  fo  me  reflexions,  fhewing  hozv 
foolifli,  abfurd  and  ridiculous  the  Deifis'  pretences  to  their 
f  efficiency  are,  -  -  333 

CHAP.       XVIII. 

Containing  an  anfzoer  to  fow.e  of  the  Deifls*  principal  arguments 
for  the  fujficiency  of  natural  religion,  *      345 

CHAP.     XIX. 

Wherein  Herbert's  reafons  for  publiPiing  his  hooks  in  defence  of 
Deifn  are  examined  and  found  weak,  361 

C  H  A  P.     XX. 

Wherein  the  Queries  offered  by  Herbert  and  Blount,  for  proving 
the  fujiciency  of  their  Five  Articles  are  examined,  370 


xxh  INDEX, 

ESSAY   ON  FA  I  TIL 

C  H  A  P.    L 

Containing  fome  general  remarks  concernmg  knowledge,  faith,  and 
particularly  divine  faith,  and  that  both  as  to  the  faculty  and  act- 
ings thereof  J  -  •  40 1 

CHAP.     II. 

Wherein  the  nature  of  that  faith,  -u^hich  in  duty  we  are  obliged  to 
give  to  the  word  of  God,  our  obligation  to,  and  our  ability  for 
anfwtring  our  duty,  are  inquired  into,  ■  404 

CHAP.     III. 

The  ground,  or  the  ftsrmal  reafon,  whereon  faith  affents  td  the 
fcriptures  is  inquired  after  ;  the  RatlonaUji^s  oph'ton  about  it, 
and  particularly  as  fiat ed  by  Mr.  Locke  in  his  book  on  Human 
Underftanding,  is  propofed  and  conjidered,  409 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  this  fceptical  age,  which  qut^flions  almofl  every 
thin^,  If  is  rtill    owned  as  certain,  that  all  rnen    mufl  die.     If 
there  were  any  place    for  dlfputing  this,   there  are  not   a   few, 
who  would  fpare  no  pa'ns  to  bring  theiiifelves  Into  the   difbelief 
of  a  trufh,  that  gives  them  io  mach  dlfturbance,  In  the  courfes 
they  love  and  feem  refolved  to  follow  :   But  the  cafe   Is  fo  clear, 
and  the  evlden-c  of  (his  principle  fo   pregnant,   which  Is  every 
day  confirmed   by  new  experiments,  th^t  the  moft   refolved  in- 
fidel is  forced,  when   it  comes   in   his  v/ay,  though  unwilling, 
to  eive  his  affjnt,  and   moan  out  an  Amen.     The  ^rave  is  the 
houfe  appointed  for  all  the  livings     Some  arrive  fooner,  fome 
later  ;  bat    all    come   there  at  length.     The    obfcurity  of  the 
ineanefl:  cannot  hide  him,  nor  the  power  of  the   greateft  fcreen 
him  from  the  impartial  hand  of  death,  the  executioner  of  fate, 
if  I  may  be  allowed  the  ufe  of  a  word  {o  much  abufed.     As   its 
coming  Is  placed  beyond  doubt,  {o  its  afpe6l  is  hideous  beyond 
the  reach  of  thought,  the  farce  of  expreiHon,  or  (he  utmoft  ef- 
forts of  the  finefi  pencil  In  the  moft  artful   hand*.     It,  In  a  mo- 
ment, da(hes  down  a  fabric,  which  has  more   of  curious   con- 
trivance than  all   the  celebrated  pieces  put  together,  which  the 
moft  refined  human  wits  have  Invented,  even   when  carried    to 
the  greateft  height,  which  the  Improvements  of  fo  many  fubfe- 
quent  generations,  after  the  utmoft  of  application  and  diligence, 
could  bring  them  to.     It  puts  a  flop  to  many  thoufand  motions, 
which,  though  (irangely  diverfified,  did  all  concur,  with  won- 
derful  exa6tnefs,  to  maintain,  and   carry  on  the  defign  and  In- 
tendment of  the  glorious  and  divine  Artificer.     How  this  divine 

E  and 


42  INTRODUCTION. 

and  wonderful  machine  was  firQ  ere6\ed,  fet  a  going:,  and  has^ 
for  (o  long  a  trad  of  time,  regularly  peirformed  al)  i's  rr.otions, 
could  never  yet  be  underilood  by  the  moft  elevated  underftand- 
ings.  CaTiJl  thou  till  hozv  the  bones  grow  in  the  womb  of  her 
that  is  with  child',  is  a  challenge  to  all  the  fons  of  art,  to  un- 
fold the  myOery?  Many  have  accepted  it,  but  all  have  been 
foiled.  Something  they  could  (ay  :  but,  in  fpite  of  it  all,  the 
thing  they  found  a  myilery,  they  left  fo  flill.  How  can  one  then 
look  on  the  dilTolutibn  of  fo  admirable  a  contrivance,  a  machine 
fo  curious,  and  fo  far  farpafling  human  art,  without  the  deep- 
efl  and  moil  ienfible  regret.  It  untwifis  that  myrtcrious  tie, 
whereby  foul  and  body  were  fo  faft  linked  together  ;  breaks 
up  that  intimate  and  ciofe  correfpondence,  that  entire  fympaihy 
which  was  founded  thereon  ;  diilodges  an  old  inhabitant ;  and 
while  it  lingers,  being  unvi^illing  to  remove,  death  pulls  that 
curious  fabric,  wherein  it  dwelt,  down  about  its  ears,  and  fo 
forces  it  thence,  to  take  up  its  lodgings,  it  can  fcarce  tell  where.- 
And  upon  its  removal,  that  curious  fabric,  that  a  little  before 
was  full  of  life,  a(Stivity,  vigour,  order,  warmth,  and  every  thing 
clfe  that  is  pleafant,  is  now  left  a  dead,  unacSlive,  cold  lump, 
or  difcidered  mafs  of  loathfome  matter,  full  of  ftench  and  cor- 
ruption. Now  the  body  is  a  fpe6\acte  fo  hideous,  that  they  wha 
loved,  and  who  embraced  it  before,  cannot  abide  the  fight  or 
fmell  of  it  ,-  but  (but  it  up  in  a  coffin,  and  not  content  with  that,- 
away  they  carry  it  and  lodge  it  amongf^  worms,  and  the  vileft 
infects  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  to  be  Coiifumed,  devoured, 
torn  and  rent  by  the  moft  abominable  vermin  that  lodge  in  the 
grave. 

Quantum  inutatus  ah  illo  "*. 

V/e  have  all  heard  of  the  afflictions  of  Job,  Two  or  three 
meflengcrs  arrive,  each  after  another,  and  Oill  the  laft  is  worft^ 
Every  one  tells  a  ftory.  The  firft  is  fad  ;  but  its  flill  more  me- 
lancholy that  follows.  The  difafter  is  fo  terrible,  that  it  fills 
the  world  with  jiift  af^onilhrnent.  And  yet  after  all,  what  is 
X^\s\o  death,  which  alone  is  able  to  furniPn  fubjesSl,  more  than 
enough,  for  fome  thoufands  of  fuch  melancholy  melTages  !  One 
might  bring  the  dying  man  the  melancholy  tidings,  that  he  is 
divefted  of  all  his  beneficial,  pleafant,  and  honourable  em- 
ployments: While  he  is  yet  fpeakinsj,  another  might  be  ready 
to  bid  him  denude  himfeif  of  all   his  poiTcffions  :  A  third,  to 

continue 

*  «  How  greatly  changed  from  wh?t  it  once  was,'* 


INTRODUeTIOKr.  43 

continue  the  tragedy,^  might  afTure  hira  that  there  is  a  commif^ 
fioti  ifTued  out  to  an  impartial  hand,  to  tear  him  from  the  cm- 
braces  of  his  dear  relations,  without  regarding  the  hideous  out- 
cries of  a  loving  wife,  the  meltings  of  tender  infants,  the  in- 
tercelTions  of  dear  friends  :  While  others  continuing  ftill  the 
mournful  fcene,  might  allure  him  that  he  was  no  more  to  re- 
ViCa  the  f.agrancy  of  the  fpring,  or  tafte  the  delights  of  the  fons 
of  men,  or  fee  the  pleaf^qt  light  of  the  fun,  or  hear  the  charm- 
ing aiis  of  mufic,  or  the  yet  more  ufeful  converfe  of  friends. 
And  to  make  the  matter  fadder  Hill,  if  it  can  well  be  (o,  the 
ftory  might  be  fliut  up  with  a  rueful  account  of  the  parting  of 
foul  and  body,  with  all  the  horrible  difaflers  that  follow  upon 
this  parting. 

Thus  the  cafe  evidently  ftands.  Not  a  title  of  all  this  ad- 
mits of  debate.  To  every  man  it  may  be  faid,  De  tc  fahula 
narratur*.  What  a  wonder  is  it,  that  fo  grave  and  important 
a  fubject  is  fo  little  in  the  thoughts  of  men  ?  What  apology 
can  be  made  for  the  folly  of  minkind,  who  are  at  fo  much  pains 
to  fhelter  themfelvcs  againrt  lefler  inconveniences,  quite  over- 
looking this,  that  is  of  infinitely  greater  confequence  ? 

Here  is  the  light-fidc  of  death,  which  every  body  may  fee. 
What  a  rueful  and  allonilhing  profpe6l  doth  it  give  us?  Where 
fell  we  find  comfort  againll  that  difmal  day,  whereon  all  this 
fhall  be  verified  in  us?  He  is  fomething  worfe  than  a  fool  or 
madman,  that  will  not  look  to  this.  And  he  is  yet  more  mad 
that  thinks,  that  rational  comfort  in  fuch  a  cafe  can  be  main- 
tained upon  dark,  flender  and  conjectural  grounds. 

It  is  certain,  that  which  muft  fupport,  mufi  be  fomething  on 
the  other  fide  of  time.  The  one  fide  of  death  affords  nothing  but 
matter  of  terror ;  if  we  arc  not  enabled  to  look  forward,  and 
get  fuch  a  fight  of  the  other  as  may  balance  it,  we  may  rea^ 
Ibnably  fay,  that  it  had  been  better  for  us  never  to  have  been. 

Undoubtedly,  therefore,  no  queilion  is  fo  ufeful,  fo  necef- 
farv,  fo  noble,  and  truly  wojthy  the  mind  of  man  as  this— 
What  lliall  become  ofm-  after  death?  What  have  I  to  look 
for  ori  the  other  fide  of  that  awful  change? 

Thofe  arts  and  fcience^  which  exercife  the  induftry  and  con- 
fideration  of  the  greater  part  of  the  thinking  world,  are  cal- 
culated for  time,  and  aim  at  the  ple?.fure  or  advantage  of  a  pre- 
sent life.  It  is  religion  alone  that  directly  concerns  itfelf  in  the 

important 

*  «  It  is  of  you  that  the  ftory  is  told." 


44  INTRODUCTION, 

important  qiiefllon  laft  mentioned,  and  pretends  to  offer  coiti* 
forts  aeain ft  the  melancholy  a fpeil  of  desth,  by  fecuring  us  in 
an  up-making  for  our  loiTes  on  the  other  fide  of  time.  Men,  who 
are  not  biind  to  their  ou'n  intereft,  had  need  therefore  to  take 
care  of  the  choice  of  their  rf/z^^?^??.  if  they  neglccSt  it  allo- 
gefher,  as  many  now  do,  th-y  forfeit  ail  prcfpetl  of  relit f. 
If  they  choofe  a  wrong  one,  that  is  not  able  to  reai  h  the  end, 
they  are  no  lefs  unhappy.  The  world  may  call  them  niiSy  or 
what  elfe  they  pleafe^who  either  Vvhc-llv  negled^anJ  laugh  over 
all  inquiries  after  reugion.ox  who  fuperficialiv  look  into  matters 
of  this  nature,  and  pafsa  hady  judgment:  But  fober  rcafon  'ill 
look  on  them  zs  Jcmezihat  below  the  condition  of  the  beafts  that 
perijh, 

it  is  much  to  be  regretted,  that  the  bulk  of  mankind  found 
their  principles,  as  well  as  practice  and  hopes,  on  no  better 
bottom  than  education^  which  gives  but  too  juft  occahon  for 
the  fmart  refle<f?iiGn  of  the  witty,  though  profane  pott — 

By  education  mon:  have  been  mifled  ; 
So  they  believe,  becaufe  they  were  fo  bred. 
The  pritR  continues  what  the  nurfe  began  ; 
And  thus  the  child  impofcs  on  the  man*. 

Moft  part  feek  no  better  reafon  for  their  belief  and  pra6ilce 
than  cuflom  and  education.  "Whatever  thofe  ofrer  in  principle, 
they  greedily  Iwallovv  down,  and  venture  all  on  {o  weak  a  bot- 
tom. And  this  fure  is  one  of  the  great  realtors  why  fo  many 
mifcarry  in  this  important  matter.  It  is  true,  in  this  inquiring 
age,  many,  efpecially  of  the  better  quality,  fcorn  this  v;ay. 
But  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  greater  part  of  them,  flying  on 
extremes,  as  is  comm.on  in  fuch  cafes,  have  fallen  into  another 
and  a  worfe  one,  if  not  to  themfelves,  yet  certainly  of  more 
pernicious  confequencc  to  the  public.  They  fet  up  for  wits  and 
men  of  fnfe.  Th  y  prcterd  to  have  found  cut  great  miflakes 
in  the  principlesof  their  education,  the  religion  of  their  coun- 
try ;  and  thereon,  without  more  ado,  rejecl  it  in  hulk,  and 
turn  J^ep fie s  in  relij>ion.  And  yet  after  all  this  ncife,  mofi  of 
them  neither  underhand  the  religion  they  rejeO,  nor  knoiv" 
they  what  to  fubi^itute  in  its  room,  which  is  certainly  an  error 
of  the  worft  confcquv-nce  imaginable  to  the  public  ;  fince  men 
once  arrived  at    this   pals,  can   never  be    depended  on.     Men 

may 

^  /////^  and  Fanther. 


INTRODUCTION,  45 

may  talk  what  thev  pleafe.  A  man  of  no  religion  is  a  ir.an 
not  to  be  bound,  and  therefore  is  abfolutely  urn-eet  fcr  any 
fhare  in  a  fociety,  which  cannot  fublift,  if  thefacred  ties  of  re- 
ligion hold  it  not  together. 

But  whatever  courfe  fuch  perfcns,  on  the  ore  h?nd  or  other, 
fteer,  the  more  conndeiate  and  better  part  of  mankind,  in  n.at- 
ters  of  fo  high  importanre,  v\ili,  with  the  niceft  care,  try  all, 
thyt  xYicy  m3iy  hold  j aft  what  is  good-  If  a  man  once  urder- 
ftands  the  importance  of  the  cafe,  he  v\ill  find  reafon  to  look 
fome  dei  per,  and  think  more  ferioufiy  cf  this  matter,  than  ei- 
ther the  unthinking  gcneialiiy.,  who  receive  all  in  bulk,  with- 
out trial,  as  it  is  given  them,  or,  the  forward  xLOuld  be-ziits, 
that  oftentimes  are  guilty  of  as  great, and  much  micre  pcrnicicus 
credulity  in  rejc(S^ing  all,  as  the  other  in  receiving  all. 

But  whereas  there  is  fo  many  different  rehgicns  in  the  world, 
and  all  of  them  pretend  to  ccndud  us  in  tl  is  imiportant 
inquiry;  which  of  them  fhall  we  choofe  ?  The  deijht  to 
drive  us  into  their  religion,  which  ccnfiils  only  of  five  articles, 
agreed  to,  as  they  pretend,  by  all  the  world,  would  bear  us  in 
hand,  that  a  choice  is  impcffible  to  be  made  of  any  particular 
religion,  till  we  have  gone  through,  with  luch  a  parti;,  ular  exa- 
mination of  every  pretender,  and  all  things  that  can  be  faid  for 
or  againft  it,  as  no  man  is  able  to  make.  Blount  tells  us,  as 
Herbert  before  had  done,  That  **  unlefs  a  man  read  all  authors, 
*'  fpeak  with  all  learned  men,  and  know  all  languages,  it  is 
**  impoffible  to  come  to  a  clear  lolition  of  all  doubts*."  And. 
fo  in  effect,  it  is  pretended  impclhble  to  be  fatisficd  about  the 
truth  of  any  particular  religion.  If  this  realcning  did  hold,  I 
fhould  not  doubt  to  m.ake  it  appear,  that  no  truth  whatfcever  is 
to  be  received  ;  and  in  particular,  that  their,  fo  mi;'{  h  boaOed 
of,  catholic  rdigion,  cannot  rationally  be  entettained  by  any 
man.  If  we  can  be  fatisficd  upon  rational  grounds  about  no 
truth,  till  we  have  heard  and  confidered  all,  that  not  only  has 
been  faid,  but  may  be  alleged  againft  it;  what  truth  cr;n  we 
believe  ?  Here  it  is  eafy  to  obierve  that  fome  cannct  do,  unlefs 
they  overdo.  The  intendment  of  fuch  reafonii/g  is  obvious: 
Some  men  would  caft  us  loofe  as  to  all  religion,  that  mc  may- 
be brought  under  a  neceflity  to  take  up  with  any  fancy  they 
fhall  be  pleafed  to  offer  us;  a  man  that  is  finking  will  take  hold 
ofthemoft  tender  twig.    1  he  Fapids  have  vigoroufiy  purfucd 

this 

*  Blount's  Rellgio  Laid,  page  91.     Herbert's  Rdi^io  Laia'i  page  12. 


46  INTRODUCTION. 

fills  courfe  in  opporition  to  the  Proteftants,  to  drive  them  into 
the  arms  of  their  vrfaltibU  guide.  And  indeed  the  learned 
HerbcTt's  reafonings  on  this  point,  after  whp^rj  the  modern 
deiils  do  but  copy,  feem  to  be  borrowed  from  the  Romanilh, 
and  are  U'  ged  upon  a  defign  not  unfavourable  to  the  church  of 
Kome,  of  which  perhaps  more  afterwards. 

But  io  wave  this  thin  fophiOry  ;  any  one  that  will,  with  a 
fujtabie  applicalion,  engage  in  the  confidcrntion  of  what  rell* 
gion  he  is  to  choofe,  will  quickly  find  himfelf  eafed  of  this 
isrmanageablc  tafk,  which  the  dt;ifts  would  (et  him.  His  in- 
quiry will  foon  be  brought  \o  a  narrow  compafs,  and  the  pre- 
tenders, that  will  rcquiie  any  nice  conlideralior;,  will  be  found 
very  ^t\v. 

For,  a  very  overly  confideration  of  the  religion  in  the  hea^ 
then  worlds  will  give  any  confiderate  mind  ground  enough  to 
relt  fully  aiTured,  that  the  defired  fah*sfa6\ion  as  to  future  hap' 
f/incfs,  and  the  ivicans  of  attaining  it,  are  not  thence  to  be  ex- 
pedied.  Here  he  will  not  find  what  may  have  the  leaft  appear- 
cncc  of  fatisf)'ing.  The  wifefi  of  the  heathens  fc^rce  ever  pre- 
tended to  fatisfy  tl^mfelves,  much  lefs  others,  upon  thefe 
heads.  All  things' here  are  dark,  vain,  incoherent,  inconfif- 
tent,  wild,  and  plainly  ridiculous  for  n>oft  part ;  as  will  fur- 
ther appear  in  our  progrefs.  Their  religions  were,  generally 
fpeaklng,  calculated  fvjr  other  pyrpofes,  and  looked  not  {o  far 
as  eternity. 

Nor  will  it  be  more  difficult  to  get  over  any  Hop  that  the 
religion  of  Mahomet  may  lay  In  our  inquirer's  way.  Let  ^ 
man  feiioully  perufe  the  Alcoran,  and  if  he  has  his  fenfes  a- 
bout  him,  he  cannot  but  there  fee  the  moft  pregnant  evidences 
of  the  groOrcft,  moft  fcandalous  and  impudent  impofture,  that 
ever  was  obtruded  upon  the  world.  Here  he  muft  expeit  no 
other  evidence  for  what  he  is  to  believe,  but  the  bare  aifertion 
of  one,  who  was  fcandalouOy  impious  to  that  degree,  that  his 
own  followers  know  not  how  to  apologize  for  hitn.  If  you  in- 
quire for  any  other  evidence,  you  are  doomed  by  the  Alcoran 
to  everlafting  ruin,  and  his  ilavcs  are  ordered  to  dci\roy  you  *. 
Me  forbids  any  inquiry  into  his  religion,  or  the  grounds  of 'it, 
and  therefore  you  muff  cither  admit  iri  bulk  the  entire  bundle 
of  fopperies,  inconfiftencies,  and  lliocking  abfurdities,  that  are 
cafl  together  in  the  Alcoran,  without  any  tr^al,  or   rejetl  ail  ; 

And 

*  Alcoran,  chap.  4. 


INTRODUCTION.  4? 

And  In  Ihi^  cafe,  no  wife  man  will  find  it   hard    to  make  -^ 
choice. 

After  one  has  proceeded  thus  far,  he  may  eafily  fee,  that  hg 
is  now  inevitably  cafl  upon  one  of  four  concluficrs :  Either  ifl^ 
He  niuft  conclude  it  cerlain  that  all  religion  is  vain,  that  there 
is  nothing  to  be  expecled  after  this  life,  and  (o  commence  athe- 
ift.  Or  2dly,  He  muli  conclude,  that  certainty  is  not  attaina^ 
'kle  in  thefe  things;  and  io  prove  fieptic  Oc  ^dly,  He  miifb 
pretend,  that  every  one's  reafon  unqffijled  is  able  to  conducl 
him  in  matters  of  religion^  afcertain  him  of  future  happinefs, 
and  dire6t  as  to  the  means  of  attaining  it ;  and  to  fst  up  for 
natural  religion,  and  turn  deijl.  Or  4rhly,  He  muft  acquiefc<; 
in  the  revealed  religion  contained  in  the  fcriptures,  and  fo  turn 
Chrijiian,  or  at  leaf!  Jew* 

As  to  the  firn  of  thefe  courfes,  no  man  w^ill  go  into  it,  till 
he  has  abandoned  reafon.  An  atheift  is  a  monfter  in  nature. 
That  there  is  nothing  to  be  expected  after  this  life,  and  that 
man's  foul  dies  with  his  body,  is  a  defperate  conclufion,  which 
ruins  the  foundation  af  all  human  happinefs  ;  even  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  dcifls  themfelves*.  There  are  two  material  ex- 
ceptions which  are  fufficieat  to  deter  any  thinking  man  from 
clofing  with  lU 

The  one  is,  the  kidequfnefs  of  its  afpeB,  Annihilation  is  fo 
horrible  to  human  nature,  and  has  fo  frightful  a  vifage  to  mea 
who  have  a  defire  of  perpetuity,  inlaid  in  their  very  frame, 
that  none  can  look  at  it  ferioufly  vviihout  the  utmofl  dread.  It 
is  true,  guilty  atheifts  would  fain  take  fan6iuary  here;  yet, 
were  they  brought  to  think  feriouily  of  the  cafe,  they  would 
r.ot  find  that  relief  in  it  which  they  projeiS^.  I  have  been  cre- 
dibly informed,  that  a  gentleman  of  no  contemptible  parts,  who 
had  lived  as  if  indeed  he  were  to  fear  or  hope  nothing  after 
time,  being  in  prifon,  and  fearing  death,  (though  he  efcaped 
it  and  yet  lives)  fell  a  thinking  ferioufly,  when  alone,  of  anni" 
hilation:  And  the  fears  of  it  bad  fo  deep  and  horribie  impref- 
fion  on  his  mind,  th-it  he  profciTed  to  a  gentleman,  who  made 
him  a  vifit  in  prifon,  and  found  him  in  a  grievous  damp,  that 
the  thoughts  of  annihilation  were  fo  dreadful  to  him,  that  he 
had  rather  think  of  a  thoufand  years  in  hell.  GuiUy  finners, 
to  cafe  their  confciences,  and  fcreen  them  from  the  difquiet'ng 
apprchenfions  of  an  after-reckoningy  retreat  to  this,  as  a  refuge  ; 

but 

*  jLctler  to  a  Deifl,  page  125. 


4S  INTRODUCTIOIvf* 

but  tVscy  think  no  more  about  it,  faveonly  this  and  that  in  an 
overly  wav,  that  it  will  free  them  from  the  puniihment  they 
dreid  and  deferve.  Bat  if  they  would  fedately  view  it,  and 
take  und^r  their  confideration  all  the  horror  of  the  cafe,  their 
natures  would  recoil  and  (brink  :  It  would  create  uneafinefs 
initead  of  qjiet,  and  increafe  the  ftrait  rather  than  relieve 
them  from  it. 

Bofides,  which  is  the  other  exception  againft^  it,  were  there 
never  fo   much  comfort  ia  it,  as   th^re  is   none,  y^i  it  is   i?n^ 
pofjibk  to  prove  that  there  is  nothing  after  this  lije.     There  is 
nothing  that  is  tolerable  can  be  faid  for  it.      None    fhall    ever 
evince  the  certainty  of  the  foul's  dyin:r  with  the  bo^y,  till  he 
lias  overthrown  the  bun^  of  a  God,  which  can  never  be  done  fo 
lon^  as  there  is  any  thing  certain  among  men.   Further,  as  there 
Js  little  or   nothing  to  be  faid  for  it,  fo  there    is    much    to   be 
faid  aa:ains1  it.     Reafoi  atfbrds   violent   prefumptions,  at   leaf^, 
for  a  future  ftate.      And  all  the  arguments,  which  conclude  for 
the  truth  of  Chriiiianity,  join  their   united  force  to  fupport  the 
certainty  of  a  ftue  after  this  life.     Till  thefe   are  removed  out 
of  the  wa/,  there  is  no  accefs  for  any  to  enjoy  the   imaginary 
comfort  of  this  fuppofition.     But  who  will    undertake  folidly  to 
overrurn   fo  many  arguments,  which  have  flood  the  tefl  of  ages  ? 
They  who  are  likely  to  be  moR  forward,  and  favour  this  caufe 
mofl,  dare  fcarce  allow  thefe  reafonings  a  fair  hearing,  which 
plead  for  a  future  Hat?,   for  fear  of  rivetting  the   impreffion   of 
the  truth  deeper  on  their  minds,  which  they  defire  to    Oiake 
themfelves    loofe    of.       And    how    then   will    they    overthrow 
them?  In  fine,   he  is   a   madman,   who  will  go  into  a  conclu- 
fion,  whereof  he  can    never  be  certain,  and   wherein,  were    it 
fure,  he  can  have    no  fatisfaflion.     The   firlt  forbids  the  judg" 
menty  the  lad  diiTuades  the  zoiil and  affeBions  from  reding  in  it. 
As  to   the  fecond  conclufion   above-mentioned,   that   fets  up 
iov  fcepticifni  in   matters  of  religion,  and  bids  us  live  at  perad- 
ventures  as  to  what    is  to    be    feared   or    hoped   after    time ;   it 
is  a  courfe   that  nothing  can  jullify  fave  ahfolute  neceffity.     It 
lies  open  to  the  worft  of  inconveniences.     Nothing  can  be  ima- 
gined more  melancholy  than  its  confequences,  and  the  pretences 
to     it  are  vain  and  frivolous. 

If  it  is  really  thus,  th  it  man  can  arrive  at  no  certainty  in 
matters  of  religioa,  aad  about  his  ft ite  after  time,  how  deplo- 
rable is  mm's  condition?  His  cafe  is  comfortlefs  beyond  what 
can  be  well  conceived.     Nor  can  hij  enjoyments  aiford  him 

any 


INTRODUCTION.  49 

sfny  folid  fatisfa6lion^  while  ghoflly  death  looks  him  in  the  face, 
and  the  fvvord  hangs  over  his  head,  fupported  by  a  hair.  Will 
not  the  profpecl  of  this  rueful  change   (of  whofc  difmal  attend- 
ants wef  have  given  feme  account)   imbitter  his  fweetefl;  enjoy- 
ments  ?  And  will  not  the  horror  of  the  cafe  be  much  increafed 
by  refolving  upon  a    perplexing  uncertainty  as    to  what  may 
come  after?  In  how  difmal  a   plight  is  the  poor  man,  who  on 
the  one  hand  is  certain  of  the  fpeedy  arrival  of  death  with  all 
its  frightful  attendants;  and  on  the  other,  is   told  that  he  muft 
rove  in  uncertainty,  till  the  event  clear  him,  whether  he  fhali 
be  entirely  annihilated,  and   fo   plunge   into  that   horrible  gulf 
where  atheifts   feek  faniSluary!  or   if    he  fhall   not  be   hurried 
headlong  into  thefe  endlefs  torments,  which  the  confciences  of 
guilty  finners,  when    awakened,  prefage  ;  or,~  if  he  fhall  foar 
aloft  into  regions  of  endlefs  blifs^  v/hich  linfui  mortals  have  but 
little  reafon  to  expe6f  ;  or,  finally,  whether  he  is  not  to  launch 
out  into  fome  flats  reducible  to  none  of  thefe.     If   here  we  be- 
hoove to  fix,  one  would  not  to  know  how   to    evite  two  con- 
clufions   that  are   horrible    to    think    of  :  **  That  our  reafon, 
**  whereby  we  are  capable  of  forefeeing^  and  are  affe6tcd  with 
'*  things  at  a  diftance,  is  a  heavy  curfe  ;  and  that  the  profligate 
"  atheifl,  who  endeavours  to  mend  this  fault,  in   his  ccnftitu- 
**  tion,  by  a  continual  debauch,  that  never  allows  him  to  think 
'*  any  more  of  what   is  certainly   to  come,  than  if  he  were  a 
*'  a  brute  incapable  of  forethought,  is  the  wifeft  man." 

Befide,  as  was  above  infinuated,  the  pretences  for  this  courfc 
are  vain.     It  is  true,  mofi;  of  thofe  who  fet  up  for  wits  in  this 
unhappy  age,   are   mere   fceptics    in  religion,  who  admit  no- 
thing as  certain,  but  boldly  queftion  every  thing,  and   live  at 
peradventures.     Yet    we    are  not  obliged   to  think    that   this 
fcepticifm  is  the  refalt  of  a   ferious  inquiry,  and  the   want  of 
certainty  thereon  ;  but  thofe   gentlemen's  way  of  living   is  in- 
Confifient  with  ferious   religion  ;   they  are  therefore  defirous  to 
have  fuch  a  fet  of  principles  as  may,  if  not  favour  them  in  the 
practices  they  have  a  mind  to  follow,  yet   not  incornmode  them 
fore.     This   principle  gives  not  abfolute  fecurity  of  impunity  ; 
but   it  feems,  and  but  [terns,  to  juftify   them    in  a  prefent  ne- 
gle6\   of   religion,    and   gives    them  a  may   he  for    an   efcape 
from  feared  and    deferved  punifhments  ;  and  favours  that  lazi- 
nefs  that  cannot  fcarch  for  truth,  where  it  lies  not  open   to  the 
e)'e,  even  of  thofe  who  care  not  to  fee  it.     Their  pra6tice  artd 
courfc  of  life   Ihew  them   fo  impatient  of  reflraints,  that  they 

F  tove 


50  INTRODUCTION. 

love  liberty,  or  rather  licentiovfnefs  ;  and  are  not  'willing  td 
come  under  any  bonds.  They  greedily  grafp  at  any  difticulty 
that  feems  to  make  never  {o  little  agalnfl  religion  ;  an  evidence 
that  tliey  bear  it  no  real  good-will.  They  neither  converfe 
much  vith  books,  nor  men,  that  may  afford  them  fatisfa6tion, 
in  reference  to  tlieir  real  Icruples,  which  is  proof  enou^:;h  they 
defign  not  to  be  fatisfied.  They  are  light  and  jocular  in  their 
converfe  about  the  mofi  ferious  matters  ;  an  evidence  that  their 
defign  is  not  to  be  informed.  It  is  a  good  obfervation  of  the 
wife  man,  [Prov- xiv.  6,]  A /corner  Jeeketh  wifdom  and  Jind' 
eth  it  not :  hut  knowledge  is  cafy  to  him  that  underjlandeth* 
This  is  the  real  myflery  of  the  matter  with  thofe  gentlemen^ 
whatever  they  may  pretend. 

I  know  they  want  not  pretences,  taking  enough  with  the 
unthinking,  whereby  they  would  jufllfy  themfelves  in  their  in-* 
fidelity.  The  principal  one  is,  that  they  find  it  eafy  to  load 
religion  with  abundance  of  difhcullies,  not  eafily,  if  at  all,  ca- 
pable of  folution.  But  after  all,  thefe  gentlemen  ufe  thofe  ob^ 
jeBihns  as  the  jceptics  did  of  old,  not  fo  much  to  maintain  any 
fettled  principle,  no  not  their  beloved  one,  whereof  now  we^ 
fpeak  ;  as  to  create  them  work,  and  make  fport  w^ith  thcfe  wh» 
would  ferioufly  confute  them,  and  to  ward  off  blows  from  them- 
felves, who  have  neither  principles  nor  pradlice  capable  of  a 
rational  defence. 

It  is  like  indeed,  that  fometimes  they  may  meet  with  fuch^ 
who  although  they  own  religion,  are  yet  incapable  of  defending 
it  againfi  fuch  objec^.ions.  But  this  is  no  wonder,  fince  there  are 
weak  men  of  all  perfuafions.  And  their  weaknefs  is,  or  ought, 
not  to  be  any  real  prejudice  to  the  truth  they  maintain.  Be- 
fides,  every  one  may  know  that  ignorance  of  any  fubjc6l  is> 
fertile  of  doubts,  and  will  flart  abundance  of  difficulties;  where- 
as it  requires  a  more  full  and  exa<5>  acquaintance  with  the  na- 
ture of  things  to  folve  them  ;  and  this  falls  not  to  every  one's 
fharc. 

Further,  if  this  be  allowed  a  reafonable  exception  againfl 
religion,  that  it  is  liable  to  exceptions  not  eafy  to  be  folved, 
it  will  hold  as  well  good  againfl  all  other  forts  of  knowledge, 
as  againfi  religion  ;  yea,  and  1  may  add,  it  concludes  much 
ftronger  ,•  for  the  farther  a nv  fubje6l  is  above  our  reach,  the 
lefs  reafon  v/e  have  to  expedl;,  that  we  fhall  be  capable  of  folv- 
ing  every  difficulty  that  may  be  flarted  againfl  it.  There  is 
no  part  of  our  knowledge,  that  is  not  incumbered  with  diffi- 
culties, 


INTRODUCTION.  ^ 

cultles,  as  hard  to  be  fatisfyingly  folved,  as  thofc  commonly 
urjred  againft  religion.  If  this  be  a  fufficient  leafon  to  queftion 
religion,  that  there  are  arguments  which  may  be  urged  againft 
it,  not  capable  of  a  fair,  or,  at  leaft,  an  eafy  folutlon  ;  I  doubt 
not,  upon  the  fame  ground,  to  bring  the  gentlem.en  who  main- 
fain  this,  if  they  will  follow  out  their  principle,  to  rejedt  the 
mofl  evident  truths,  that  we  receive  upon  the  credit  of  moral, 
metaphyfical,  and  mathematical  demonllrations ;  yea,  or  even 
upon  the  teftimony  of  our  fenfes.  For  I  know  few  of  thefe 
truths  that  we  receive  upon  any  of  thofe  grounds,  againft  which 
a  perfon  of  a  very  ordinary  fpirit  may  not  ftart  difficulties, 
which  perhaps  no  man  alive  can  give  a  fair  account  of;  and  yet 
no  m.an  is  fo  foolifh  as  to  call  in  queiUon  thofe  truths,  becaufe 
he  cannot  folve  the  diflicultics  which  every  idle  head  may  ftart 
upon  thofe  fubje^ts.  I  m,ay  give  innumerable  inOances  of  the 
difficulties  wherewith  other  parfs  of  human  knowledge  are  em- 
barralTed  :  I  fliall  only  hint  at  a  few. 

That  matter  is  diviiTible  into,  or  at  leaft  confifts  of  indivifi- 
ble  points,  is  with  fom.e  a  truth  next  to  feJf-evident.  That  the 
quite  contrary  is  true,  and  matter  is  divifiblc  in  infinitumj  ap- 
pears no  lefs  certain  to  many  others*.  But  if  either  of  them 
Ihould  pretend  themfelves  capable  of  folving  the  difficulties, 
that  lie  againft  their  refpecStive  opinions,  it  were  fufficient  to 
make  all  men  of  fenfe  and  learning  doubt  of  their  capacity  and 
judgment  :  For  the  difficulties  on  both  hands  are  fuch,  that  no 
ingenuous  man  that  underftands  them,  will  pretend  himfeif 
capable  of  giving  a  fair  folution  of  thofe,  which  prefs  that  fide 
of  the  queftion  he  is  inclined  to. 

i^gain, whether  we  v/ill,  or  v^ill  not,  we  muft  believe  one  fide, 
and  but  one  fide,  of  the  queftion  is  true;  that  either  matter  is  di- 
vifiblc in  inJinitufUf  or  not ;  that  it  confifts  of  indivifibles,  or  not ; 
thefe  are  contradictions.  Arid  it  is  one  of  the  moft  evident  propo- 
iitions  that  the  mind  of  man  is  acquainted  with,  that  contradic- 
tions 

*  Loch  on  Human  Underjlandingi  edit.  5,  pag.  207. — "  I  would 
"  fain  have  inftanced  in  our  notion  of  fpirit  any  thmg  more  perplexed} 
^^  or  nearer  a  contradicftion,  than  the  very  notion  of  body  includes  iii 
**  it;  the  divifibility  ///  infinitum  of  any  finite  extenfion,  involving  up, 
"  whether  we  grant  or  deny  it,  in  confequenccs  impoffible  to  be  ex- 
**  plicated,  cr  mads  in  our  apprehenfions  confident;  confequences  that 
"  carry  greater  difficulty,  and  more  apparent  abfurdicy  than  any  thing 
.  "  that  can  fellow  from  the  notion  of  an  immaterial  fubilancco" 


^z  INTRODUCTION. 

tions  cannot  be  true,  or  that  both  fides  of  a  contradlciion  can-^ 
not  hold.  And  yet  againit  this  truth,  whereon  much  of  our 
nioft  certain  knowledge  depends,  iDiblnble  difficuhies  may  be 
Urged  :  For  it  may  be  pretended,  that  here  both  fides  of  the 
contradiftlon  are  true,  and  this  pretence  may  be  enforced  by  the 
arguments  above-mentioned,  which  confirm  the  two  oppcfite 
opinions,  which  no  mortal  can  anfuer.  Shall  M'e  therefore  be- 
lieve thatcontradidions  may  be  true  ? 

That  motion  is  poffible  I  am  not  like  to  doubt,  nor  can  I, 
while  1  know  that  I  can  rifs  ard  walk  ;  nor  is  he  like  to 
doubt  of  it,  who  fees  me  walk.  And  yet  I  doubt  not  the  mofl 
ingenious  of  our  atheiflical  wits  w^outd  find  himfelf  fufficiently 
llraitened,  wete  the  arguments  of  Zeno  Eleates  againft  motion 
well  urged,  by  a  fubde  difputant.  I  Ilia  11  offer  one  argument 
j^gainll  motion,  which  1  am  fully  fatisfied  will  puzzle  the  mod 
kibtle  adverfaries  of  religion  to  folve  fatisfyiagly.  There  are 
ifrongcr  arguments  proving  that  matter  is  dlviiible  in  infinitum 
than  any  mortal  can  folve  or  anfwer,  though  I  perhaps  believe 
it  untrue.  And  it  is  as  certain  as  the  fun  is  in  the  firmament, 
that  if  matter  is  divifible  in  infinitum,,  it  confifls  of  an  infinite 
number  of  parts— (what  fome  talk  of  indefinite  is  a  flielter  of 
ignorance,  and  if  it  is  ufed  any  other  way  than  as  a  fhield  to 
ward  off  difficulties  for  a  while  in  a  public  difpute,  the  ufers 
cannot  be  excufed  either  of  grofs  ignorance,  rooted  prejudice, 
or  dirmgenuity).  This  being  laid  down  as  proven,  and  pro- 
ven it  may  be  by  arguments,  which  none  living  can  fatisfy, 
that  matter  is  divifible  in  infinitum^  and  that  confequently  it 
contains  an  infinite  num.ber  of  parts.  Nor  is  it  lefs  certain, 
that  according  to  thefe  conclufions  laid  down,  if  one  body  move 
upon  the  furface  of  another,  as  for  inilance,  an  inch  in  a  mi- 
nute's time,  it  mufi  pafs  by  an  infinite  number  of  parts  ;  and  it 
is  undeniable,  that  it  cannot  pafs  one  of  that  infinite  number  of 
parts  without  fome  portion  of  time.  Now  if  fo,  what  a  vaft 
portion  of  lime  will  it  require  to  make  that  little  journey,  which 
we  know  can  be  performed  in  a  moment  !  Will  it  not  evi- 
d:::ntly  require  an  eternity  !  What  dilficulty  can  any  urge,  more 
difficult  to  be  folvt'd,  againfi  religion  than  this?  And  yet  for  all 
this  he  were  a  fool  who  would  doubt  of  motion. 
■  As  to  matliematical  certainty,  though  many  boalls  are  made 
of  the  firmnefs  of  its  demonfirations  ;  yet  thefe  may,  upon  this 
ground,  be  called  all  in  queftion.  And  1  nothing  doubt,  that 
Jf  men's  intereils,  real  or    pretended,  lay  £*s  crofs  to  them,  as 

they 


INTRODUCTION. 


53 


thev  are  fuppofed  to  do  to  the  truths  of  a  religion,  many  more 
exceptions  might  be  made  againft  them,  than  are  againft  thole, 
and  upon  full  as  good,  if  not  better  realbn.  In  juftification  of 
this  aflertion,  I  might  proceed  to  demonftrate  how  trifling  even 
the  definitions  of  geometry,  thefirmcft  of  all  the  mathematical 
£ciences,  are.  Its  definitions  might  be  alleged,  upon  no  in- 
confiderable  grounds,  trifling,  nonfenfical,  and  ridiculous. 
Its  demands  or  populates,  plainly  impracticable.  Its  axioms 
or  felf-evident  propofitions,  controvertible,  and  by  themfelves 
they  are  controverted.  Any  one  who  would  fee  this  made  good 
in  particular  inftances,  may  confult  (befides  others)  the  learn- 
ed Huetius'  Demonjhatio  Evangelica^  where,  in  the  illufiration 
of  his  definitions,  axioms  and  poftulates,  he  compares  them  with 
thofe  of  geometry,  and  prefers  them  to  thefe,  and  (liews  they  arc 
incumbered  with  fewer  difficulties  than  the  other,  though  with- 
out derogating  from  the  jufl  worth  and  evidence  of  mathema- 
tical fciences.  Befides  what  he  has  obferved,  I  may  add  this 
one  thing  more,  that  thofe  fciences  deferve  not  any  great  re- 
gard, fave  as  they  are  applied  to  the  ufe  of  life,  and  in  a  fub- 
ferviency  to  man's  advantage.  And  when  thus  they  are  ap- 
plied to  practice,  the  difficulty  is  confiderably  increafed,  and 
thev  may  eafily  be  loaded  with  innumerable  and  infoluble  in- 
conveniences. For  then,  their  definitions  ceafe  to  be  the  defi- 
nition of  names,  and  are  to  be  taken  as  the  definitions  of  things 
that  arc  a61ually  in  being.  Their  demands  mufi:  not  be  prac- 
ticable, but  put  in  pra6\ice.  And  who  fees  not  how  many  in^ 
cxtricable  difficulties  the  pra6lifcr  will  be  caft  upon  ?  The  de- 
montlration  may  proceed  bravely  fo  long  as  they  hold  in  the 
theory,  and  mean  by  PunB-um,  id  cujus  pars  nulla  eft*  ;  and  the 
fame  may  be  faid  of  lines  and  furfaces,  and  all  their  figures  ; 
without  obliging  us  to  believe  that  really  there  are  any  fuch 
things.  But  when  we  come  to  the  pra6^ice,  they  mufi  go  further, 
and  take  it  for  granted,  that  there  are  fuch  points,  lines,  furfaces 
and  figures.  This  turns  what  was  before  only  an  explication  of 
a  name,  into  the  definition  of  a  thing.  And  therefore  I  am 
now  left  at  liberty  to  difpute,  whether  there  is  any  fuch  thing  ; 
or,  whether  indeed  it  is  poffible  that  there  ffiould  be  luch. 
And  who  fees  not  now,  that  they  are  incumbered  with  as  m^a- 
ny  difficulties  as  may  perhaps  be  urged  again  ft  any  fcience 
whatfoever. 

It 

*  «  That  which  has  no  parts." 


5^ 


INTRODUCTION. 


It  were  encJJcfs  to  enumerate  the  things  we  mui't  bellevej 
without  being  capable  to  reiblvc  the  difficuhies  about  them. 
The  vericit  Infidel  mutl:  fuppofe  that  fomething  is  eternal,  or  all 
things  are  eternal,  or  that  they  jumped  ir?to  being  without  any 
caufe.  Whichlbever  he  (hall  choofey  he  is  led  into  a  labyrinth 
of  difKculties,  which  no  mortal  wit  can  clear.  We  muft  all  own, 
that  either  matter  and  motion  are  the  principle  of  thought;  or, 
that  there  are  immaterial  fubftanccs  which  aiFetl;  matter,  and 
are  ilrungely  aiFe6lcd  by  what  befalr.  it.  Whichfoever  hde 
any  Ihall  choofe,  he  is  caft  upon  inextricable  difficulties. 
Much  more  might  be  faid  on  this  head  ;  but  what  has  been 
laid  is  more  than  enough  to  ibew,  that  if  this  courfe  is  ta- 
ken, it  faps  the  foundations  of  all  human  knowledge,  and  there 
is  no  part  of  it  fafe. 

,  BchJes,  this  way  of  queOIoning  religion  upon  the  pretence 
of  difl-icuities  lyini^:  againtl  it,  is  contrary  to  the  common  fenfe  of 
iiianki'nd,  contraditls  the  pra6lice  of  all  wife  men,  and  is  in- 
coafii'lent  with  the  very  nature  of  our  faculties.  For,  if  I  have 
a  clear  unexceptionable  and  convincing  proof  for  any  truth,  it 
is  againft  all  reafon  to  reject  it,  becaufe  I  have  not  fo  full  and 
comprehcnfive  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  circumOances  of  the 
object,  as  is  neceflary  to  enable  me  to  folve  all  difficulties  that 
may  occur  about  it  :  Yea,  fuch  is  the  nature  of  our  faculties, 
that  to  juftlfy  in  the  opinion  of  the  niceii  inquirers  after  truth, 
nay,  to  extort  an  afTent,  clear  proof  is  fufficlent  ;  whereas,  to 
untie  all  knots,  and  folve  all  obje6tions,  perfect  and  compre- 
henfive  knowledge  is  abfolutely  needful ;  which  man's  condi- 
tion allows  him  not  to  expe6t  about  the  meaneft  things.  And 
the  more  remote  any  thing  lies  from  common  obfervation,  the 
lefs  reafon  there  is  ftill  to  look  for  a  fulhiefs  of  knowledfre  and 
exemption  from  difficulties.  If  therefore  men  will  turn  fceptics 
in  religion,  to  ju(Hfy  themfelves,  they  muft  attempt  the  proofs 
whereon  it  is  grounded.  Sampfon-llke,  they  muft  grafp  the 
pillars  that  fupport  the  fabric,  and  pull  them  down.  If  this  is 
not  done,  nothing  is  done.  And  he  that  will  undertake  this, 
man  have  a  fall  view  of  their  force,  and  find  where  there 
flrength  lies:  Now  a  ferious  view  of  this  will  be  fuffixient  to 
deter  any  wife  man  from  the  undertaking. 

la  a  word,  this  fcepticifm  can  yield  no  cafe  or  fatisfaif^ion  to 
a  reafonable  foul.  For  if  a  man  Ihall  thinls.  rationaily,  hh 
reafon  will  fuggeft  to  him,  that  though  all  religion  at  prcfent 
fceras  uncertain  to  him,  yet  upon  trial  perhaps  he  may  hnd  the 

grounds 


i  N  T  R  O  D  U  C  T  I  b  N.  55 

grounds  of  religion  fo  evident,  that  he  cannot  withhold  his  af- 
fcnt.  This  will  at  leaft  oblige  him  to  a  ferious  inquiry  into 
the  truth.  Next,  in  uncertainties  (fuppofing,  after  ferious  in- 
quiry, he  fiills  thinks  the  truths  of  religion  fuch)  a  prudent  man 
wiil  incline  to  what  is  moft  probable.  Finally,  he  will  choofe 
and  fteer  luch  a  courfe  of  life  as  will  be  fafeit,  in  cafe  he  fhall  in 
experience  afterward  find,  that  there  is  a  God,  aiid  a  future  ftate. 
All  which  Qiew  the  folly  of  our  fceptics,  and,  were  it  ferioufly 
confidered,  would  much  mar  their  defign,  which  is  thereby  to 
juftify  a  licentious  life. 

Now  we  have  confidered,  and  fufhcienlly  crrpofed  the  two 
firfl:  branches  of  the  above-mentioned  choice  :  and  confequently 
every  man  mufl  find  himfelf  caft  upon  a  neceility  of  one  of  two. 
He  mufl  either  betake  himfelf  to  natural  religion^  and  fo  turn  de- 
iji  ;  or  he  mufl:  embrace  tht  fcriptursSf  and  turn  Chri/iian :  Fot 
as  to  the  Jtwifli  religion,  it  is  not  likely  to  gain  many  converts. 

If  therefore  we  are  able  to  demonftrate  the  utter  injufficiency 
of  natural  religion^  in  oppofition  to  tlie  deijls  who  fet  up  for  it, 
we  reduce  every  man  to  this  choice,  tjiat  he  muft  be  a  Chrijlian 
or  an  atheifl  ;  or,  which  is  the  fame  upon  the  matter,  a  man 
of  no  religion  ;  for  an  infiifficient  religion  is  in  effed  none. 
And  to  demonflrate  this,  that  natural  religion  is  utterly  in fuffi- 
cient,  that  unafTifled  reafon  is  not  able  to  guide  us  to  happinefs, 
snd  fatisfy  us  as  to  the  great  concerns  of  religion,  is  the  dellgn 
of  the  fubfequent  fheets.  In  them  we  have  clearly  flated  and 
endeavoured  with  clofenefs  to  argue  this  point.  We  have  brought 
the  pleadings  of  the  learned  lord  Herbert ,  and  the  modern  deifisf 
who  do  but  copy  after  him,  to  the  bar  of  reafon,  examined  their 
utmofl  force,  and,  if  1  miOake  it  not,  found  them  weak  and 
inconcludent. 

As  for  the  occzfion  of  my  engagement  in  this  controverfy, 
it  was  not  fuch  as  commonly  gives  rife  to  writings  of  this 
nature.  I  undertook  it  with  no  defign  of  publication.  1  was 
provoked  by  no  adversary  in  particular.  But  every  man  being 
obliged  to  underftand  upon  what  grounds  he  receives  his  reli- 
gion, I  fludled  the  point  for  my  ov/n  fatisfadion,  and  in  com- 
pliance with  my  duty. 

As  for  the  reafons  of  my  undertaking  this  part  of  the  contro- 
verfy, I  ihall  not  fay  much.  The  only  vi^ife  GOD,  wJio  has 
determined  the  times  before  appointed,  and  made  of  one,  blood  all 
nations  of  men  that  dwell  on  tke  earthy  has  appointed  them  the 
hounds  of  their  habitation ,  cut  out  different  pieces  of  work  for 

for 


56  I  N  T  R  O  n  U  C  T  I  O  N, 

them,  t^a  them  into  different  circumflances,  and  hereby  ejc- 
pofcd  them  to  trials  and  temptations  that  are  not  of  the  fame 
kind.  As  every  man  is  obliged  to  cuhivate  in  the  heft  manner 
he  can  the  bounds  of  land  affigned  to  him,  and  defend  his  pof* 
feffions  ;  fo  every  one  is  concerned  to  imprdve  and  defend  after 
the  heft  form  he  may,  thofe  truths,  vi^hich  his  circumftances 
have  obliged  him  to  take  peculiar  notice  of,  and  his  temptations, 
of  whatever  fort,  have  cndeavcured,  or  may  attempt  to  wreft 
out  of  his  hands. 

Beiides,  we  live  in  a  warlike  age,  wherein  every  one  mufl: 
be  of  a  party  in  matters  of  religion.  And  religion  is  a  caufe 
in  which,  when  difputed,  no  man  is  allowed  to  ftand  neutral. 
As  all  are  concerned  to  choofe  the  right  fide,  fo  every  one  is 
obliged  to  provide  himfelf  with  the  beft  armour  his  arfenal  can 
afford,  both  for  defending  himfelf  and  others  that  own  the  fame 
caufe,  and  to  annoy  the  common  enemy.  Nor  is  this  work 
peculiarly  confined  unto  thofe,  who  by  office  are  obliged  to  it: 
For,  in  publico  difcrimini  eft  omnis  homo  miles  ** 

Befides,  it  is  well  known,  that  the  mofl  bold  attempt  that 
ever  was  made  upon  revealed  religion,  fincc  the  entrance  of 
Chriflianity  into  the  world,  has  been  made,  in  our  day,  by 
men,  who  {ti  up  for  natural  religion,  and  who  have  gone  over 
from  Chrijlianity  unto  a  refined  Paganifmy  under  the  name  of 
Deifm,  Two  things  they  have  attempted  ;  to  overthrow  revela^ 
tion,  and  to  advance  natural  religion.  The  lafl  work  has  been 
undertaken,  I  may  without  breach  of  charity  boldly  fay  it,  not 
fo  much  out  any  real  atfe6^ion  to  the  principles  or  duties  of  na- 
tural religion,  as  to  avoid  the  odium  inevitably  following  upon 
a  renunciation  of  all  religion  ;  and  becaufe  they  faw  that  men 
would  not  eafily  ^quit  Chriftianity,  without  fomething  were 
fubftitated  in  its  room,  that  might  at  lead  have  the  name  of 
religion.  Revealed  religion  has  been  worthily  defended  by 
many,  of  old  ^md  of  late,  at  home  and  abroad  ;  but  the  in- 
J ujficiency  of  natural  religion  has  been  lefs  infilled  on,  at  leaft: 
in  that  way  tliat  is  necelfary  to  ftraiten  an  obftinate  adver- 
fary.  And  feveral  things  incline  me  to  think  an  attempt  of 
this  'nature  feafonable,  if  not  neceflfary,  at  this  time. 

The  times  are  infectious,  and  deifm  is  the  contagion  that 
fpreads.  And  that  which  has  taken  many,  particularly  of  dSr 
vnwary  youth  of  the  better  quality,  off  their  feet,  and  engaged 

them 

*  «  In  a  time  of  public  danger  every  man  is  a  foklier,'* 


INTRODUCTION.  57 

them  to  efpoiife  this  caufe,  is  the  high  pretence  that  this  way- 
makes  to  rcafoti*  They  tell  us,  that  their  religion  is  entirely 
reafonable,  and  that  they  admit  nothing,  lave  what  this  dictates 
to  them,  and  they  endeavour  to  reprelent  others  as  eafy  and 
credulous  men.  Now  I  thought  it  meet  to  demonftrate,  for 
undeceiving  of  fuch,  that  none  are  more  credulous,  no-ne  have 
lefs  reafon  upon  their  fide,  than  they  who  fet  up  for  rational 
religion  i 

Again,  we  have  flood  fufficiently  long  upon  the  defenfive 
part,  we  have  repulfed  their  efforts  againtl  revelation.  It  feems 
now  feafonable,  that  we  fhould  a6l  offenfively,  and  try  how 
they  can  defend  their  own  religion,  and  whether  they  can  give 
as  good  account  of  it  as  has  been  given  of  Chriftianity.  To 
fiand  always  upon  the  defenfive  part,  is  to  make  the  enemy 
doubt  ours,  and  turn  proud  of  their  own  ftrength. 

The  reafonablenefs  of  this  will  further  appear,  if  we  confiSer 
the  quality  of  the  adverfaries  we  have  to  do  with,  and  their  man- 
ner of  management.  The  enemies  who  have  engaged  revealed 
religion,  fenfible  of  their  own  wcaknefs  to  defend  themfelves  at 
home,  and  endure  clofe  fight,  do  commonly  make  inroads,  where 
they  expe6l  none,  or  a  faint  refiftance.  They  defign  not  fo 
much  to  conquer,  as  to  dillurb.  Jeft,  buffoonery,  or  at  bed 
fophifms,  and  fuch  little  artifices,  are  the  arguments  they  ufe, 
and  the  weapons  of  their  warfare.  The  beft  way  to  make  fuch 
rovers  keep  as  home  is,  to  carry  the  war  into  their  own  coun- 
try, and  to  ruin  thofe  retreats  they  betake  themfelves  to  when 
attacked.  They  have  feen  what  Chriftians  can  fay  in  defence 
of  revealed  religion.  It  is  now  high  time  to  fee  how  they  can 
acquit  themfelves  on  behalf  of  ;2«/2;r^/ r^/2'^z(7?2.  It  is  eafy  to 
impugn.  It  is  a  defence  that  gives  the  beft  proof  of  the'  de- 
fender's fkill,  and  fays  mofl  for  the  caufe  he  maintains. 

I  own  indeed  that  moft  who  have  evinced  the  truth  of  revealed 
religion,  have  faid  fomething  of  the  weaknefs  of  natural  reli- 
gion. But  this  has  only  been  by  the  bye,  and  in  a  way  too  loofc 
to  ftraiten  obflinate  oppcfers,  not  to  Ipeakof  the  too  large  con- 
ceffions  that  have  been  made  them  by  fome. 

Finally,  natural  religion  being  the  only  retreat,  to  which 
the  apoftates  from  Chriflianity  betake  themfelves,  and  whereby 
they  think  themfelves  fecured  from  the  imputation  of  plain  ^Z^^- 
iffn,  it  is  hoped,  that  a  full  and  convincing  difcovery  of  its 
weaknefs,  may  incline  fuch  as  are  not  quite  debauched,  to 
look  how  they  quit  Chriftianity,  and  engage  with  that  which. 


5$  INTRODUCTION. 

if  tins  attempt  is  fuccefsfuJ,  muft  henceforward  pafs  for  dif^ 
guifed  athtifm. 

It  now  only  remains,  that  I  offer  fome  account  of  the  rcafong 
that  have  induced  me  to  manage  this  controverfy  in  a  method 
So  far  different  from  that  which  is  commonly  ufed.  The  rea- 
fons  of  this  have  been  above  infinuated,  and  I  fhall  not  infiH: 
rhuch  further  on  them,  left  I  (hould  feem  to  detraft  from  per- 
formances to  v.'hich  I  pay  a  very  great  regard.  The  method 
fome  have  choien,  in  managing  this  controverfy  with  the  deifts, 
to  me  appears  inconvenient.  They  begin  with  an  endeavour 
to  eftablilli  the  grounds  of  natural  religion ^  and  by  the  help  of 
light  borrowed  from  re7jelation,  they  carry  the  matter  fo  far,  and 
extend  natural  relii^lon  to  fuch  a  compafs,  that  it  looks  pretty 
complele-like  ;  which  has  too  evident  a  tendency  to  leilen  its 
real  deJtBs^  and  make  them  appear  inconfiderable. 

Again,  I  am  afraid  that  fome  have  gone  near  to  give  up  the 
whole  caufe.  This  fault  I  would  be  very  loth  to  charge  upori 
all.  Many  I  know  have  dealt  faithfully  in  it,  and  defervei 
praife.  But  how  to  excufe  fome  in  this  cafe  I  know  not.  One 
tells  us  that,  **  It  is  true  indeed,  that  natural  religion  declares 
**  and  comprizes  all  the  parts  of  religion,  that  are  generally 
**  and  in  all  times  either  neceflary  or  requifite*!"  And  much 
more  to  the  fame  purpofe.  This  is  m.uch  fuch  another  af-* 
fertion  of  the  weaknefs  of  natural  religion  againfl  the  de- 
ifts, as  the  fame  author  gives  us  of  the  perfection  of  the  fcrip-*- 
turest  in  oppofition  to  the  fame  perfons  in  another  place  of 
his  book.  **  1  could,"  fays  he,  *'  prove,  1  think,  by  undenia- 
**  ble,  unavoidable  inftances  f,"  what  Mr.  Gregory  of  Oxford 
fays  in  his  preface  to  fome  critical  notes  on  the  fcriptures  that 
he  publifned,  viz.  "  That  there  is  no  author  whatfoever  that  has 
**  fufFered  fo  much  by  the  hand  of  time  as  the  Bible  has."  Is 
this  the  way  to  overthrow  the  fufficiency  of  natural  religion,  and 
to  defend  the  fcriptures?  This  is  not  the  only  remark  1  could 
make  upon  this  author,  were  it  my  defign.  But  this  may  let 
us  fee  how  neceffary  it  is  to  deal  a  little  more  plainly  with 
the  afferters  of  natural  religion. 

Further,  to  adorn  natural  religion  with  the  improvements 
borrowed  from  revelation,    is  the   ready  way  to  furnifh  thofe 

who 

*  Difcourfe  concerning  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,  by  Stephen 
Nye,  Part  2,  Cnap.  i,  page  97, 
t  Ubi  Ju^ra,  page  199, 


INTRODUCTION. 


59 


who  fet  up  for  its  fufficicncy,  with  pretences  to  ferve  their  de- 
^\gnf  and  to  ftraiten  themielves,  when  they  come  to  fhew  its 
defects.  And  perhaps  I  (hould  not  miftake  it  far,  if  I  alTeited, 
that  the  ftrongeft  arguments  urged  by  deifts,  have  been  drawn 
from  unwary  conceflions  made  them  by  their  adverfaries. 

And  this  is  the  more  confiderable,  that  the  perfons,  with 
whom  we  have  to  do  in  this  controverfy,  are,  generally  fpeak- 
ing,  either  of  no  great  difcerning,  or  fmall  application;  who 
have  no  great  mind  to  wait  upon  the  bufinefs,  or  look  to  the 
bottom  of  It.  Now  when  fuch  perfons  find  many  things  gran- 
ted, they  are  ready  to  think  all  is  yielded,  and  fo  run  away 
with  it,  as  the  caufe  were  their  own.  That  fuch  conceffions 
have  done  no  good  fervice,  there  is  too  much  reafon  to  believe. 
This  I  am  fare  of,  it  would  have  been  long  before  the  deifts 
could  have  trimmed  up  natural  religion  fo  handfomely,  and 
made  it  appear  io  like  a  fufficlent  religion^  as  fome  have  done, 
who  meaned  no  fuch  thing. 

Finally,  the  apoftle  Paul's  method  is  doubtlefs  moft  worthy 
of  imitation,  who,  when  he  is  to  prove  juflification  by  faith, 
and  enforce  an  acceptance  of  it,  flrongly  convinces  of  fin,  and 
the  utter  infufficiency  of  works  for  that  purpofe.  The  bet>  way 
in  my  opinion,  to  engage  men  to  clofe  wi\h  revealed  7'eligion, 
is  flrongly  to  argue  the  infufficiency  of  natural  religion* 

As  to  the  performance  iti'elf,  and  what  I  have  therein  at- 
tained, I  am  not  the  judge  competent.  Every  reader  mud  judge 
as  he  fees  caufe.  I  have  not  the  vanity  to  exped  that  it  fhould 
pleafe  every  bodv.  The  vafi  compafs  of  the  fubjecl,  the  va- 
riety of  the  purpofes,  the  uncommonnefs  of  man\',  if  not  moil 
of  them,  with  refpedl  to  which  I  was  left  to  walk  in  untrod- 
den paths,  and  other  difficulties  of  a  like  nature,  with  candid 
and  judicious  readers  will  go  a  great  way  towards  my  excufe 
in  lefler  efcapes.  As  for  the  fubftance  of  the  enfuing  difcourfe, 
I  am  bold  to  hope,  that  upon  the  ftrittefi;  trial  it  fhalj  be  found 
|rue,  and  pleaded  for  in  words  of  truth  and  fobernefs. 


AN 


A  N 


INQUIRY 


INTO    THE 


PRINCIPLES  of  the  MODERN  DEISTS. 


CHAP.      I. 


Giving  a  Jhort  Account  of  the  Ri/e,  Occafions,  and  Progrefs  of 
Dafm,  efpecially  in  England,  the  Opinions  of  the  Deijis,  and 
the  different  Sorts  of  them, 

X  HERE  is  no  man,  who  makes  it  his  concern  to 
underftand  what  the  ftate  of  religion  has,  of  late  years,  been, 
and  now  is,  particularly  in  thefe  nations,  but  knows  that  defm 
has  made  a  confiderable  progrefs.  Since  therefore  it  is  againft 
thofe,  who  go  under  this  name,  that  this  undertaking  is  defjgn- 
cd,  it  is  highly  expedient,  if  not  plainly  neceflary,  that  in 
the  entry,  we  give  fome  account  of  the  occafiont  and  rife  oi 
deijm,  the  principal  opinions  of  the  deifs,  and  fome  other 
things  that  may  tend  to  clear  the  matter  difcourfed  in  the 
fubfequent  fheets. 

It  is  not  neceflary  that  we  inquire  more  largely  Into  the 
caufes  of  that  general  defe6lion  in  principle  and  praBice  from 
the  ^(?^n7Zd  of  the  ^^d?/  which  now  everywhere  obtains;  this 
has  been  judlciouiiy  done  by  others. 

Nor  will  it  be  needful  to  write  at  length  the  hiflory  of  deifnu 
This  I  think  impravSlicable,  becaufe  the  growth  of  this  feH  has 

been 


62  AN   INCLUIRY   INTO   THE  chap,  u 

been  verv  A"cret,  and  they  have  generally  dlfguifed  their  opi- 
nions. And  pei haps  till  of  late,  they  Icarce  had  any  fettled 
opinion  in  matters  of  religion^  if  yet  they  have.  But  though  ■ 
it  were  practicable,  as  it  is  not,  yet  It  is  not  neceflary  to  our  pre- 
fent  undertaUno; ;  and  if  it  were  attempted,  would  require  more 
helps,  and  more  kifure,  belldes  ether  things,  than  1  am  mafter 

One  has  of  late  written  a  ramphJet  bearing  this  title,  **  An 
Account  of  the  Growth  of  Deifm  in  England  */'^  1  he  author, 
if  he  is  not  a  deift,  yet  has  done  v.  hat  in  him  lies  to  promote 
ti'tir  caufe,  by  fetting  off,  with  all  the  art  and  addrets  he  is 
mailer  of,  thofe  things  which,  he  f.jys,  have  tempted  many  to  turn 
deiiis,   without  any  attempt  to  anudote  the  poilcn  of  them. 

Another  has  wrote  R?fe8ions  upon  this  pamphlet,  wherein 
he  has  fufiRciently  fncwn,  that  thole  alleged  by  the  former  au- 
thor, v/ere  not  fufiicient  reaibns  to  jiifiify  any  in  turning  deifl. 
But  I  conceive  that  is  not  the  main  queOJon.  If  he  had  a 
mind  to  difprove  the  other  author,"  he  Ihould  haye  made  It  ap- 
pear, that  t'he  partlcuLrs  condefcended  upon  by  bis  antagonift, 
had  no  real  influence  into  this  apuftafy.  Whether  they  gave  a  juft 
caufe  for  it,  is  another  queflicn.  I  am  fatisfied  they  did  not. 
But  neither  do  thofe  ?Y^y^?zj  of  this  defe^ion,  condescended  on 
by  the  reJleSer,  give  a  fufficlent  ground  for  it.  Nor  are  there  any 
reafons  that  can  juftify  any  in  reiinquiihing  Chrifiianity.  The 
inquiry  in  this  cafe  Is  not.  What  juft  grounds  have  the  delfts 
to  warrant  them  in,  or  engage  tiiem  to  this  defe£tion?  for  all 
Chriaians  own  ic  impofiibie  th?y  ihould  have  any.  But  the 
quetlion  is,  WHiat  has  e,iven  occahon  to  any,  thus  to  fall  olF 
from  our  religion  ?  Now  I  conceive  both  thefe  writers  have  hit 
upon  federal  of  the  Arz^^  r^^/o;z5  of  this;  though  the  firft  is  ap- 
parently 8;uiltv  oUeeb  imprudence,  1  wiib  I  might  not  lay  ma- 
lice,  againPi  Chriftianity,  in  propofmg  thofe  temptations,  with 
all  }he' advantajre  he  could  give  them,  and  that  without  any 
antidote  :  For  vvhich  and  other  faults  he  has  been  juftly,  though 
mod  eft]  y,  cenfured  by  the  rejleStr. 

-    Although  both  of  them  has  given  fome  account  of  this  matter, , 
yet  1  conceive  (o    much   has  not   been   faid  as  may  fuperfede  a 
further   inquiry,  or    make    us  defpair  of  obferving  not  a  few 
things  that    have  not   haJ  an    Inconfiderable    influence,   which 
are  overlooked  by  both.     W^iereforc  wc  Ihall   In   a  few  words 

propoie 

*  Printed  anno  169c. 


PRINCIPLES  01^  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       6^ 

propofe  our  opinion  of  this  matter.  And  In  delivering  it,  we 
Jliall  not  piuTue  the  defign  of  any  party,  but  make  it  evident 
that  all  parties  have  had  their  own  acceflfion  to  the  growth  o£ 
this  eml.  Thouith  1  am  fenfible  th<it  this  account  will  fall  hca- 
yy  upon  21  /et  of  men  in  particular,  who  have  of  late  years 
claimed  the  name  of  the  Church  of  England,  though  unjufily  ; 
if  we  take  her  Homilies,  Articles,  ard  the  confentlent  judg- 
ment of  her  renowned  bifhops  from  the  time  of  the  Pvcfoimation 
to  bilhop  Laud's  time,  for  the  Oandard  of  her  do6\rine*;  and  I  fee 
no  reafon  whv  we  ought  not.  I  premiied  this  to  avoid  any  fuf- 
picion  of  a  defign  to  brand  the  Church  of  England,  with  an 
acceffion  to  the  growth  oj  dnjni.  And  even  in  fpeakLg  of 
that  ftt  of  men,  whom  I  take  to  be  principally  guilty,  I  would 
not  be  underftood  to  fpeak  fo  much  of  the  defign  of  the  men,  as 
cf  the  noJive  tendency  of  their  doBrine  and  praBices- 

The  many  groundlefs,  nay  ridiculous  pretecces  to  revelation^ 
and  bold  impoftures  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  cf  thofe  m  ho 
have  fupportcd  that  intereli  ;  their  impudence  In  obtruding  up- 
on the  world,  doctrines  crofs  to  rea/c-n  and  fe?ife,  and  princi- 
ples of  morality  fubverfive  of  the  whole  law  of  nature  +  ;  their 
fcandalous  endeavour  to  befpatter  the  fcrlptures,  and  weaken 
their  authority,  on  purpofe  to  bring  them  into  difcredit,  to 
make  way  for  the  defigaed  advancement  of  their  wild  traditions 
into  an  equality  with  them,  and  to  bring  t'ne  v/orld  under  a  ne- 
ceffity  of  throwing  themfelves  upon  the  care  and  conduft  of 
their  infallible  guide,  though  they  cannot  yet  tell  us  v^hich  Is 
he  ;  their  grofs  and  difcernible  hyrocrify  in  carrying  on  fecubr, 
nay  impious  and  unjuft  def'gns,  under  the  fpecious  pretences 
of  holinefs  and  religion  ;  their  zeal  for  2.  form  and  few  cf  re- 
ligion, a  worPnip  plainlv  theatrical  %,  v/hile  the  lives  of  their 
Popes,  Cardinals,  Monks,  Nuns,  and  all  their  higheR  pre- 
tenders to  devotion  have  been  fcandalouHv  lewd,  even  to  a 
proverb  ^  ;  the  immoral  morality,  atheipical  divinity,  and 
abominable  praBices  of  the  Jefults,  thofe  zealous  fupporteis  and 
ftrongeft  props  of  the  Poplili  intercft,  but  in  very  deed  the  worft 
enemies  of  mankind,  the  fubverters  of  ail  true  piety,  morality, 

and 

*  Sec  Bifhop  of  Sarum's  Explanation  of  the  Thirty-nine  Artick?, 
on  Art.  17  ;  pag.  168. 

+_  Growth  of  Deifin,  pag.  5.     Pvefleaions  on  it,  pag.  8. 

X  See  jefuit's  ^^ orals. 

§  Ciarkfon's  Pradicai  Divinity  of  FapiOis, 


^4  An    inquiry   into   the  chap.  i. 

and  govermnent  in  the  world  ;  thefe,  I  fay,  together  with  ma- 
ny other  evils  of  a  like  nature,  every  where  obfervablc  in  that 
church,  have  been,  for  a  very  long  time  too  evident  and  grofs 
to  be  denied,  or  hid  from  perfons  of  any  tolerable  fagacity, 
living  among  them.  And,  by  the  obfervation  of  thofe  and  the 
like  evils,  continued  in,  approved,  juftified,  and  adhered  unto  ; 
and  the  cruelty  of  that  church  in  dcftroying  all  thofe,  who 
would  not  receive,  by  wholefale,  all  thofe  (hocking  abfurditieSj 
not  a  few  who  lived  among  them,  and  were  unacquainted  with 
the  power  of  religion,  that  was  nccelTary  to  engage  them  cordially 
to  efpoufc  the  Reformed  intereft,  got  their  minds  leavened  with 
prejudices,  and  furnifhed  with  fpecious  pretences  againft  all 
revealed  religion  ;  which  they  the  more  boldly  entertained,  be- 
caufe  they  knew  it  was  lefs  criminal  to  turn  athujl  than  Fro- 
Ujlant  in  places  where  the  Popiih  intereft  prevailed. 

Thefe  prejudices  once  taken  up,  daily  grew  ftronger,  by 
the  obfervation  of  new  inftances  of  this  fort,  and  the  conftancy 
cf  thofe  of  that  communion  in  a6ting  the  fame  part,  i^nd  men 
of  wit  and  learning,  who  fooneft  faw  into  this  myftery,  and 
had  no  inward  bonds  on  them,  failed  not  to  hand  about  and 
cultivate  thofe  pretences  to  that  degree,  that  many  begun  to 
own  their  apoftafy,  if  not  openly,  yet  more  covertly. 

Not  long  after  the  beginning  of  the  laft  elapfed  century,  fo 
far  as  I  can  learn,  fome  in  France  and  Italy  began  to  form 
a  fort  of  new  a  party.  They  called  themfelves  Thnjls,  or  Deifts  ; 
unjuftly  pretending  that  they  were  the  only  perfons  who  owned 
the  One  true  God»  And  hereby  they  plainly  intimated  that  they 
had  reje6ted  the  name  of  Chrift,  They  reje<5led  all  revelation 
as  clicatf  prisjlcraftf  and  impojluref  pretending  that  there  was 
nothing  fincere  in  religion,  fave  what  nature  s  light  taught. 
However,  being  generally  perfons  too  fond  of  a  prefent  life, 
and  too  uncertain  about  a  future,  they  thought  it  not  meet  to 
put  too  much  to  the  hazard  for  this  their  pretended  religion.  It 
was  a  refined  fort  of  Paganifm  which  they  embraced,  and  they 
were  to  imitate  the  Heathen  phllofophers,  who,  whatever  their 
peculiar  fentiments  were  in  matters  of  religion,  yet  for  peace's 
iake,  they  looked  on  it  as  fafe  to  foP.ow  the  mode,  and  com- 
ply v/ith  the  religious  ufages  that  prevailed  in  the  places  where 
they  lived.  That  which  made  this  party  the  more  confidera- 
ble  was,  that  it  was  made  up  of  men,  who  pretended  to  learn- 
ing, ingenuity,  breeding,  and  who  fet  up  for  wits*  They 
pretended  to  write  after  the  copy  of  the  new  philofophers,  who 

fcorned 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        55 

fcorned  that  philcfophical  ilavery,  which  former  ages  had  l:ecn 
under  to  Ariftotie.  They  inculcated  that  crcduiiiy  was  no  ief's 
dangerous  in  matters  of  religion  than  in  matters  of  philofophy. 
And  herein  certainly  they  were  not  miOakcn.  But  one  may 
iuftly  fufpea,  that  at  the  fame  time,  while  they  pretended  to 
guard  againi^  eafmefs  in  believing,  they  have  fallen  into  the 
worli  credulity,  as  well  as  ruining  incredulity^  For  none  is  fo 
credulous  as  an  atheift* 

Much  about  the  fame  time^  fome  novel  opinions  began  to  be 
much  entertained  in  Holland,  in  matters  of  religion.  The 
broachers  of  them  being  men  learried  and  diligetit,  carefully 
cultivated  them,  till  lliey  were  ripened  into  fomething  very 
near-akin  to  plain  Socinianifm,  which  is  but  one  remove  from 
deifm.  It  v/as  not  long  after  this  when  thofe  new-fangled 
notions  took  footing  in  England  and  began  to  be  embraced  and 
countenanced  by  fome  topping  churchmen,  who,  forgetful  of  their 
Articles,  Homilies,  aud  Subicriptions,  and  the  conduct  of  their 
predeceQbrs,  carefully  maintained^  and  zealcully  propagated 
this  new  divinity. 

I  fhall  not  make  bold  to  judge  what  the  defigns  of  thofe 
were,  who  appeared  moil;  zealous  for  thefe  new  notions:  1  his 
is  to  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  him,  who  fearches  the  heart  of 
the  children  of  men,  and  will  bring  forth  things  that  arc  now 
hid*  But  there  M'ere  not  a  few  reafons  to  fufpedl  that  the  Jefuits 
had  a  confiderable  hand  in  diffeminating  them,  and  that  the 
others  were  their  tools  ;  though  it  is  likely  they  did  not  fufpe6t 
this.  The  Jefuits  vaunted  that  they  had  planted  xYit  fovereign 
drug  of  Arminianifm  in  England,  which  in  time  would  purge 
out  the  northern  herefy  *.  This  it  could  not  olherwife  do,  than  by 
fliaking  men  as  to  all  principles  of  religion.  And  it  is  a  known 
maxim,  that  make  men  once  atheifls  it  will  be  eafy  to  turn  tltem  pa- 
pifis'  The  jealoufies  many  difcerning  people  had  of  this,  were 
confiderably  increafed  when  it  was  feen  with  what  violence  the 
abettors  of  this  new  divinity  appeared  againfl  the  more  moderate 
part  of  the  Church  of  England, as  well  as  the  DifTenters,  upon  the 
account  of  fome  ceremonies,  owned  by  themfelves  as  indifierent 
in  their  own  nature  ;  while  at  the  fame  time,  they  exprefled 
a  great  deal  of  tendernefs,  if  not  refpe6t  to  the  Chuixh  of 
Rome,  and  made  propofals  for  union  with  her. 

But 

*  Rulh worth's  CoUea.  Part  1,  pjg.  475.  Letter  by  a  Jefuit  to  the 
Redor  of  Eruffels,     See  pag.  62,  ihid^ 

H 


66  AN   INQUIRY  INTO   THE  chap.  i. 

But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  it  is  certain  that  this  divinity 
opens  a  door,  and  has  given  encouragement  to  that  apoftafy 
from  Chriftianity,  that  has  fince  followed,  and  ftill  increafes, 
under  the  name  of  deifm. 

Tliis  divinity  teaches  us,  that  no  more  is  neccffary  to  be  be- 
lieved, in  order  to  falvation,  fave  what  is  confefled  and  owned 
by  all  that  are  called  Chriftians.  Dicunt  fe  non  videre  unde, 
cut  quo  mode,  prater  pauca  ijla,  qua  apud  omnes  in  conjejfo 
funt,  alia  plura  adhuc  mccjfaria  cjft  cjlendi  aut  elici  pojjit*  \ 
that  is,  *'  They  fee  not  how  it  can  be  made  appear,  that  be- 
*'  fides  thefe  few  things,  which  are  by  them  allowed,  any  o- 
**  thers  are  neceflfaiy  to  falvation."  Confonantly  hereto,  they 
exprefsly  deny  any  thing  to  be  fundamental  which  has  been 
controverted,  or  aftervv'ards  may  be  fo  f*  In  a  word,  they  teach 
that  we  are  not  necefl'arily  to  believe  any  thing,  fave  what  is 
evident  to  us.  And  that  only  is  to  be  reckoned  evident,  which 
is  confeffed  by  all,  and  to  which  nothing  that  has  any  appearance 
of  truth  can  be  oppofed.  Now  after  this,  what  is  left  in  Chrif- 
tianity  ?  The  divi?iity  ^  the  purity,  the  pefeBion  and  fufficiency  o{ 
the /criptjires];  xhe  Trinity,  Deity  of  Chrijl,  hisfatisjat'iion,  the 
whole  difpenfation  of  the  Spirit,  juflfication  by  faith  alone,  and  all 
the  ^r^/c/^j  of  the  Chriflian  religion,  have  been  and  are  con- 
troverted. None  of  them  therefore  is  neceflary  to  falvation.  Are 
not  men  left  at  liberty,  without  hazard  of  their  falvation,  to  re- 
nounce all,  fave  what  is  common  to  Chriflianity  with  natural 
religion  ?  and  fince  even  fome  of  its  mofl  confiderable  articles 
zhoxxixhe  attributes  oiGOV>  2iud  his  providence,  future  rewards 
^ndpuni fitments,  have  been, or  may  be  controverted,  why  may  we 
not  reckon  them  unneceffary  too?  The  dei/^s  have  borrowed  their 
doBrine  of  evidence,  and  oppofed  it  to  the  Chrflian  religion*  One 
of  them  tells  us,  *'  If  our  happinefs  depends  upon  our  belief,we 
**  cannot  firmly  believe,  till  our  reafon  be  convinced  of  a  fuper- 
**  natural  religion  {.'*  And  if  the  reafons  of  it  were  evident,  there 
could  be  no  longer  any  contention  about  religion.  How  little 
does  this  differ  from  that  divinity,  which  tells  us,  that  GOD  is 
obliged  to  offer  us  fuch  arguments  to  which  nothing  that  has  an 
appearance  cf  truth  can  be  oppofed  !  And  if  this  beCwanting, 
they  are  not  to  be  received  as  articles  of  faith*     Now  if  after 

this 

*  Reraonftr,  Apol,  Fol.  12. 

+  Hi,  Cap.  24,.  lol.  276;  and  Cap.  25,  Fol.  283, 

%  Oracks  of  Keafon,  p:^g.  20&.     Letter  by  A.  W.  to  C.  Blount. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.         67 

this  the  deifts  can  but  offer  any  thing  that  has    an  appearance 
of  truth  againft  Chriftianity,  they  are  free  to  reje£l  it  iji  cumulo. 

This  divinity  reduces  Chriftianity  to  7nere  morality.  Nothing 
cKq  is  univerfally  agreed  to,  if  that  be  fo.  **  The  fuppofition 
**  of  fin,  (fays  one  that  wore  a  mitre)  does  not  bring  in  any 
**  new  religion,  but  only  makes  new  circumftances  and  names 
**  of  old  things,  and  requires  new  helps  and  advantages  to  im- 
**  prove  our  powers,  and  to  encourage  our  endeavours  :  And 
**  thus  the  law  of  grace  is  nothing  but  a  reflitution  of  the  law  of 
"  nature*  " 

And  further,  left  we  fhould  think  this  morality,  wherein  they 
place  the  whole  of  Chriflianity,  owes  its  being  to  the  agency  of 
the  fan6iifying  Spirit,  we  are  told,  that  **  the  Spirit  of  God, 
**  and  the  grace  of  Chrift,  when  wicd  as  diftinft  from  moral  a- 
**  bilities  and  performances,  fignify  nothing  f."  And  a  com- 
plaint is  made  of  fome,  v/ho  fill  the  world  **  with  a  buz  and 
*'  noife  of  the  divine  Spirit  :j:."  Hence  many  fermons  were  ra- 
ther fuch  as  became  the  chair  of  a  philofopher,  teaching  ethzcks, 
than  that  of  one,  who  by  office  is  bound  to  know  and  preach 
7iothing  fave  Chrijl  and  him  crucified-  Heathen  morality  has 
been  lubftiiuted  in  the  room  of  gofpel  holinefs.  And  ethicks 
by  fome  have  been  preached  inftead  of  the  gofpel  of  Chrift, 
And  if  any  complaints  were  made  of  this  conducl,  though  by 
men  who  preached  the  neceffity  of  holinefs,  urged  by  all  the 
gofpel  motives,  and  carefully  pra6^ifed  what  they  preached  in 
their  lives,  they  were  expofed  and  reje6led,  and  the  pcrfons 
who  offered  them  were  reflecS^ed  on  as  enemies  to  morality  ; 
whereas  the  plain  truth  of  the  cafe  was,  they  did  not  complain 
of  men  being  taught  to  be  moral,  but  that  they  were  not  taught 
fomewhat  more. 

After  men  once  were  taught  that  the  controverted  docS^rines 
of  religion  were  not  neceflfary  to  falvation,  and  that  all  that 
was  necelFary  thereto  was  to  be  referred  to  and  comprehended 
■\xndzT  mGf'alityi2Lud  that  there  was  no  need  of  regeneration,  or  the 
ifandiifying  inftuences  of  the  Spirit  of  Chrift  in  order  to  the  per- 
formance of  our  duty,  it  is  eafy  to  fee  how  light  the  difference 
was  to  be  accounted  betwixt  a  Chrifiian  and  an  honeft  moi-al 
lleatken*     And  if  any  fmall  temptation  offered,  how  natural 

was 

*  S.  Park's  Defence  of  Ecclef.  Poli.  pag.  324. 
f  Idem  ibid,   pag.   345. 
%  Ecclef.  Polit.  pag.  57. 


68  AN   INQ^UIRY  INTO    THE^        chap.  i. 

v,'35  it  for  men  to  judge  that  the  hazard  was  not  great,  to  flep 
over  from  Chrijlianity  to  dtijmt  which  is  Paganil?n  a-la-rnode. 
And  to  encourage  them  to  it,  it  is  well  known  how  favourably'- 
many  ufed  to  exprefs  themfelves  of  the  flate  of  the  Heathens  ; 
little  nun  lin^  that  the  ChrilHan  reh'gion  reprefcnts  them  a'5 
rvithout  God,  and  tuilhout  C'lrijl,  and  without  hope,  children  of 
zv ra I k ,  a n d  dead  in' t refpa/fcs  and  fn s . 

I  need  not  {land  to  prove  that  tliis  divinity  is  nearly  alh'ed  to 
Socinia'jifm.  It  is  we!)  known  that  they  rfckon  the  Socinians 
found  in  the  fundamentals,  and  therefore  tJiink  them  in  no  ha- 
7.:\xAi  provided  they  live  nmrally.  Hence  iFien  have  been  em- 
boldened to  turn  Socin'ans.  And  everybody  may  fee  by  what 
€A'[y  removes,  one  may  from  Socinianifm  arrive  at  deifm.  For 
my  part  I  can  fee  little  ditFerence  betwixt  the  two-  The  deift 
indeed  fcims  the  honefter  man  of  the  two  ;  he  reje£fs  the  gof- 
pcl,  and  ownsthjt  he  does  fo  ;  The  other,  I  mean  the  Soci- 
ninn,  pretends  to  retain  it,  but  really  rejecl^s  it.  But  I  fliali 
not  iiihil  any  further  in  difccvering  the  tendency  of  this  nezu 
divinity  to  lihtrtiynjm  and  deifmy  fjnce  others  have  fully  and  ju- 
dicioully  done  it  from  the  rnofl  unqueOionable  arguments  and 
documents.  And  niore  cfpecially,  fmce  in  {dCi  it  is  evident, 
that  wherever  this  new  divinity  has  obtained,  Socinians  and 
delfts  abound,  and  many  who  embrace  it  daily  go  over  to  them  ; 
whic'i  1  take  to  be  the  fureO:  evidence,  if  it  be  duly  circum- 
itantiate,  of  the  tendency  of  this  docfrine  to  encourage  thofe 
opinions,  and  ieaft  liable  to  any  jufl;  exception.  And  perhaps 
I  might  add,  that  few,  comparatively  very  few,  v/ho  own  the 
contrary  dodlrine,  have  gone  into  this  new  way,  where  that  di- 
vinity has  not  been  entertained. 

But  to  return  whence  v/e  have  fora  little  dIc:reued,to  the  Hate 
of  religion  in  England.  No  fooner  were  they  advanced  to 
pozvn  who  had  drunk  in  thofe  opinions,  but  prefently  the  doc- 
trines that  are  purely  evano;eiical,  by  which  the  anofiles  con- 
verted the  world,  the  Reformers  promoted  and  carried  on  our 
reformation  from  Popery,  and  the  pious  preachers  of  the  Church 
of  England  did  keep  fomewhat  of  the  life  and  power  of  religion 
amongli  their  people  ;  fhefe  do6irines,  I  fav,  began  to  be  de- 
cryed  ;  julllficiation  by  the  righteoufnefs  of  Chriil,  which  Lu- 
ther calK*d  Articulus  ftantis  aut  cadenris  eccfcfiv*^  that  rif- 
de?nptioii  that  ts  in  himy  even   the  forgivenfs  of  fins  though 

faith 

*  "  An  article  by  winch  the  church  mufl  cicker  ftaad  or  fall.*' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        6g 

faith  in  Ins  blood ;  the  myftery  of  the  grace,  mercy  and  love  of 
Godmanifefted  inChrift;  the  great  myftery  of  godlinefs;  the  dif- 
penfation  of  the  Spirit  for  convidion,  renovation,  fan6tification, 
confolation  and  edification  of  the  church,  by  a  fupply  of  fpiri- 
ritual  gifts,  and  other  doctrines  of  a  like  tendency,  were,  upon 
all  occafions,  boldly  expofed,  and  difc) edited  in  prefs  and  pulpit. 
The  minifters  who  dared  to  avow  them,  from  a  convi6tion  of 
the  truth,  the  fenfe  of  the  obligation  of  their  promifes  and  fub- 
fcriptions  to  the  Articles,  were  lure  to  have  no  preferment,  nay, 
to  be  branded  with  the  odious  names  of  Calvanijls,  Fiiriians, 
FanaticSf  and  I  know  not  what. 

The  do6trines  of /^tV/z  were  not  regarded  as  belonging  to 
the  foundation  of  religion.  The  morality  of  the  Bible  was  pre- 
tended the  only  thing  that  was  necelfary  ;  and  as  much  of  the 
doBrine,  as  all,  even  Socinians,  Quakers,  and  all  the  reft 
were  agreed  in,  were  fufficient.  And  if  any  oppofed  this, 
though  in  civil  language  and  by  fair  arguments,  they  were  fure 
to  be  expofed  as  enemies  to  morality  ;  although  their  adverfa- 
ries  durft  not  put  the  conteft  on  this  ififue  with  them,  that  he 
fnould  be  reckoned  the  greatcft  friend  to  morality  who  was  moft 
blamelefs  in  his  walk,  and  (hewed  it  the  greateft  pra<?tical  re- 
gard. They  could  cxercife  charity,  forbearance,  and  love  to  a 
Spcinian  that  has  renounced  all  the  fundamental  truths  of  reli- 
gion ;  but  none  to  a  poor  Dijfenter,  who  (incerely  believed  all 
the  Doctrinal  Articles  ;  nay,  even  a  fober  Churchman,  who 
could  notconfent  to  new  unauthorized  ceremonies,  was  become 
intolerable.  So  that  men,  at  this  time,  might,  with  much  more 
credit  and  lefs  hazard,  turn  Socinian,  or  any  thing,  than  difco- 
ver  the  leaft  regard  to  truths  contained  in  the  Articles,  owned 
by  moft  of  the  Reformed  churches,  and  taught  by  our  own  Re- 
formers.  This  is  too  vt'eli  known  to  be  denied  by  any  one 
v/ho  knows  how  things  v/ere  carried  on  at  that  time  and  fmce  *. 
Further,  whereas  preachers  formerly,  in  order  to  engage 
men  to  a  compliance  with  the  gofpel,  were  wont  to  prefs  much 
upon  them,  their  guilt,  the  impoiFibiiity  of  ftanding  before  God 

in 

*  Any  one  that  would  be  fatlsf.ed  in  the  truth  of  this,  mufl  perufe 
the  fermons  and  writings  publiihed  by  that  party  of  old  and  of  late,  and 
the  hiflories  of  thofe  times,  particularly  Rvjhivorth's  Collet,  the 
fpeecbes  of  the  long  Parliament,  and  later  writings,  and  they  will  find 
documents  more  than  enough.  And  they  may  confult  alfo  Honorii 
Rcgii's  Comment,  de  fiatu  Eeclefio'  Auglicance- 


70  AN   INQ^UlRY   INTO    THE  chap.  i. 

in  their  own  righteoufncfs,  their  impotency,  their  mifery  by 
the  hilf  the  necelRty  of  regeneration,  illumination,  the  power 
of  grace  to  make  them  willing  to  comply,  and  that  no  man 
could  fincerely  call  Ckri/l  Lordf  and  be  fubje6^  to  him  pratii- 
cally,  fave  by  tkz  Holy  Ghofl ;  care  was  now  taken  to  unteach 
them  all  this,  and  to  (hew  them  how  very  little  they  had  lort  by 
the  fail,  if  any  thing  was  lofi:  by  it,  either  in  point  oi light  to  dif- 
cern,  or  power  and  inclination  to  pra6life  dut)?,  1  hey  were 
told  how  great  length  their  own  righteoufnejs  would  go,  and 
that  it  would  do  their  burinefs  ;  tliey  might  fafely  lland  before 
God  in  it  ;  or  if  there  was  any  room  for  ChnJFs  righteou/mfSf 
it  was  only  to  piece  out  their  own,  where  it  was  wanting.  In 
a  word,  the  people  were  told,  v/hat  fine  perfons  many  cf  the 
Heathens  were,  who  knew  nothing  of  illumination,  regenera- 
tion, or  what  the  Bible  was,  and  how  little  odds,  if  any  at  ail, 
there  was  betwixt  ^r^<:<2  and  inorality^ 

And,  whereas  a  veneration  for  the  Lord's  day  was  a  mean 
\ri  keep  people  under  fome  concern  about  religion,  and  that 
day  was  fpent  by  faithful  minirters,  in  preffing  upon  the  con- 
fciences  of  their  people,  thofe  new-contemned  gofpel  truths, 
to  the  fpoiling  of  the  whole  plot  ;  care  was  taken  to  difcredit 
and  bring  it  into  contempt.  Minifters,  inftead  of  telling  them 
on  that  6.2iy ^  that  they  were  too  much  inclined  to  fin,  levity, 
folly,  and  vanity,  were  commanded  to  deal  with  them  as  per- 
fons too  much  inclined  to  be  ferious ;  and  inflead  of  preaching 
the  gofpel,  they  were  required,  under  the  higheil  pains,  to  en- 
tertain them  with  a  profane  Book  of  Sports*  And  for  difobe- 
dience  many  were  ejefled.  And  that  they  might  be  taught  by 
example  as  well  as  precept,  a  Sunday's  Evening  Majk  was  pub- 
licly acted,  where  were  prefent  perfons  o\  no  mean  note  *. 

Moreover,  a  ftate  game  being  now  to  be  played,  the  pulpit, 
prefs,  religion  and  all  v/ere  made  fafely  to  truckle  to  Jtate.  de- 
JignSi  and  to  the  enllaving  of  the  nations,  by  advancing  the 
dotlrincs  of  pq[five  obedience t  no?i'refJtance,?iud  jure-divino-Jliip 
of  kings  t;  whereby  men  of  religion  were  wounded  to  fee  the 
ordinances  of  Chrifl  proHituted  to  fuch  proje6^s,  as  were  entirely 
foreign,  to  fay  no  worfe,  to  the  defign  of  their  inftitution  : 
And  men  of  no  religion,  or  who  were  not  fixed  about  it,  were, 
drawn  over  to  think  it  a   mere  cheat,  and  that  the  defign  of  it 

was 

*  Rufnworth's  Colic;^.  Part  2,  Vol.  i,  pa*:!:.  459* 
+  Eiihcp  of  Saruraonthe  Articles,  Art.  7^  pag.  152. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        71 

was  only  to  carry  an  fecular  intercft   under  fpecious  preten- 
ces. 

At  length  by  thofe  means,  and  fome  other  things,  which  are 
not  of  our  prefent  confider^tion,  concurring,  coufufions  ripened 
into  a  civil  war,  whereby  every  one  was  left  to  fpeak,  write, 
aud  live  as  he  pleafed. 

Many  who  intended  no  hurt,  while  they  upon  honeft  defigns 
inquired  into,  and  laid  open  the  faults  of  the  topping  clergy, 
did  unawares  furnifli  Icofe  and  atheiftical  men  with  pretences 
againft  the  minidry.  And  what  in  truth  gave  only  ground  for 
a  diilike  of  the  perfons  faulty,  v/as  received  by  many  as  a  juil 
ground  of  prejudice  againft  the  very  paftoral,  as  priefi-craft, 
and  all  who  are  clothed  with  it,  as  a  (qX  of  felf-deligningmen. 

The  body  of  the  people,  who  had  been  debauched  by  the 
example  oi  difcandalous  clergy ,  and  hardened  in  fin  by  the  in- 
termiihon  of  all  difctplinCt  (which  of  late  had  only  been  exercifed 
againft  the  fober  and  pious  who  could  not  go  into  the  mea- 
sures that  were  then  taken),  the  negle6l  of  painful  preaching, 
the  Book  of  Sports  and  Pajlimes,  and  who  had  their  heads 
filled  with  airy  and  felf-elating  notions  of  man's  abiliiy  to 
goodi  Jree-willi  univerjal  grace,  and  the  like,  and  who  now, 
when  they  much  needed  the  infpetStion  of  their  faithful  paftors, 
were  deprived  of  it,  many  of  them,  by  the  iniquity  of  the 
times,  being  forced  to  talce  faniluary  in  foreign  nations  ;  the 
people,  I  fay,  by  thefe  things  turned  quite  giddy,  and  broke 
into  numberlefs  fed^s  and  parties.  Every  one  who  had  en- 
tertained thofe  giddy  notions  was  zealous,  even  to  madnefs, 
for  propagating  them,  and  thought  himfelf  authorized  to 
plead  for  them,  print  for  them,  and  preach  them.  The  of- 
fice of  the  miniftry,  that  had  before  been  rendered  contemp- 
tible by  the  fuppreffion  of  the  beft  preachers,  and  the  fcan- 
dalous  lives  of  thofe  who  were  mainly  encouraged,  was 
now  made  more  fo,  by  the  intrufion  of  every  bold,  ignorant  aud 
affuming  enthufiaft.  The  land  was  filled  with  books  of  ccn- 
trovery,  I'^uffed  with  unfound,  offenfive  and  fcandalous  tenets, 
which  were  fo  multiplied,  as  they  never  have  been  in  any  na- 
tion of  the  world,  in  fo  fmall  a  compafs  of  time.  The  ge- 
nerality of  the  people  being,  by  the  neglc61  of  a  fcandalous 
miniftry,  and  the  difccuragcment  of  thofe  who  were  laborious, 
drenched  in  ignorance,  were  eafily  fnaken  by  thofe  controverfial 
writings  that  were  difleminated  every  wheie,  and  became  an 
eafy  prey  to  every  bold  fe^^tarian. 

Many 


72  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE  chap,  f^ 

Many  of  the  better  fort  fet  themfelves  tooppofe  thefc  extremes, 
and  from  a  deteftaton  of  them  were  carried,  fome  into  one  evil, 
fome  into  another  ;  whereby  the  common  enemy  reaped  adver- 
ts ge,  and  truth  fufFered  even  by  its  defenders.  Minillers  who 
defired  to  be  faithful,  by  the  abounding  of  thofe  errors,  were 
forced  to  op  pofe  them  in  public;  whereby  preaciiing  became 
lefs  edifying,  and  dlfputes  increafed,  to  the  great  detriment  of 
religion. 

The  nation  was  thus  crumbled  into  parties,  in  matters  both 
civil  and  religious,  the  times  turned  cloudy  and  dark.  Pre- 
tences of  religion  were  dreadfully  abufed  on  all  hands  to  fub- 
ferve  other  defigns.  And  even  the  befl:  both  of  miniflers  and 
people  wanted  not  their  own  fad  failings,  which  evil  men  made 
the  word  ufe  of.  The  word  and  providzyict  were  ufed  in  fa- 
vour of  fo  many  crofs  opinions  and  practices,  that  not  a  few- 
began  to  run  into  that  fame  extreme,  which  fome  in  France  and 
Italy  had  before  gone  into.  And  about  this  time  It  was  that, 
the  learned  Herbert  began  to  write  in  favour  of  delfm  :  Of 
which  we  (hall  have  occafion  to  fpeak  afterwards. 

After  the  Refloration,  things  were  fo  far  from  being  mended, 
that  they  grew  worfe.  Lewdnefs  and  atheifm  were  encouraged 
at  the  court,  which  now  looked  like  a  little  Sodom.  The 
clergy  turned  no  lefs  fcandalous,If  not  more  fothan  before.  Im- 
piety was,  as  It  were,  publicly  and  with  applaufe  a61ed  and 
taught  on  the  fiage,  and  all  ferlous  religion  was  there  expofed 
and  ridiculed.  Yea,  the  pulpits  of  many  became  theatre'?, 
whereupon  men  affumed  the  boldnefs  to  ridicule  ferious  godli- 
nefs,  and  the  graveft  matters  of  religion  ;  fuch  as  communioa 
with  God,  confeflion  of  fin,  prayer  by  the  Spirit,  and  the 
whole  work  of  convertion.  Controvcrfial  writings  were  multi- 
plied, and  In  them  grave  and  ferious  truths  were  handled  in  a 
jocular  way.  The  fcriptures  were  buriefqued  ;  and  the  moft 
important  truths,  (under  pretence  of  expofmg  the  DiflTcnters,  to 
the  great  grief  of  all  good  men  among  them,  and  In  the  Church 
of  England),  were  treated  with  contempt  and  fcorn.  The  pul- 
pits were  again  proOItuted  to  flate  dcffgns  and  doBrines  ;  and 
the  great  truths  of  the  gofpel,  in  reference  to  ?nan's  ??n/eryt  and 
his  recovery  by  Jefus  Chrijl,  were  entirely  negle6\ed  by  many; 
and  difcourfesof  morality  came  in  their  place,  I  mean  a  mora- 
lity that  has  no  refpe6l  to  Chrift  as  its  end,  author^  and  the  ground 
of  its  acceptance  with  God,  which  is  plain  heathenifm*  The 
loberer,  and  the  better    part  were    traduced  as  enthufiaftical» 

diiloval 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        73 

difloyal  hypocrites,  and  I  know  not  whan  And  fometimes 
they  on  the  other  hand,  in  their  own  defence,  were  conrtrained 
to  lay  open  the  impiety,  alheilm,  and  biafphemous  boldnefs  of 
their  traducers  in  their  way  of  management  of  divine  things. 
And  while  matters  were  thus  carry ed  betwixt  them,  carelefs  and 
indifferent  men,  efpecially  of  the  better  and  moft  confiderable 
quality,  being  debauched  in  their  pra6Iice,  by  the  licentioufnefs 
of  the  court,  the  immorality  and  loofenefs  of  the  ftage,  were 
willing  to  conform  their  principles  to  their  pra6\ice;  for  which 
this  ftate  of  things  gave  them  a  favourable  occafion  and  plaufi- 
ble  pretences.  Men  whofe  walk  and  way  looked  like  anything 
of  a  real  regard  to  religion,  they  heard  fo  often  traduced  as  hy- 
pocrites, fanatics,  and  I  know  not  what,  that  they  were  eafily 
induced  to  believe  them  to  be  fuch.  They  who  taught  them 
fOf  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  liberty  they  alTumed  in  pra6iice, 
convinced  tliefe  gentlemen,  that  whatever  their  profeflion  was, 
yet  they  believed  nothing  about  religion  themfelves  ;  and  there- 
fore it  was  eafy  to  infer  tliat  all  was  but  a  cheat.  Befides,  the 
Popifh  party,  who  were  fufficientiy  encouraged,  while  the  fo- 
ber  DilTenters  of  the  Proteftant  perfuafion  were  cruelly  perfecu- 
ted,  made  it  their  bufinefs  to  promote  this  unfettlednefs  in 
matters  of  religion.  They  found  themfelves  unable  to  fland 
(heir  ground  in  way  of  fair  debate,  and  therefore  they  craftily 
fet  themfelves  rather  to  (hake  otliers  in  their  faith,  than  dire6^- 
ly  to  prefs  them  to  a  compliance  with  their  ov/n  fentiments. 
And  it  is  well  known  they  wrote  many  books  full  of  fophiflry, 
plainly  levelling  at  this,  to  bring  men  to  believe  nothing;  as 
well  knowing,  that  if  they  were  once  brought  there,  they 
would  foon  be  brought  to  believe  any  thing  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion. 

On  thefe  and  the  like  occafions  and  pretences,  arofe  this  de** 
fe6\ion  from  the  gofpel,  which  has  been  nourilhed  by  many  of 
the  fame  things  which  firii  gave  it  birth,  till  it  is  grown  io 
fuch  ftrength,  as  fills  all  well-wifters  to  the  interell  of  religion 
with  juft  fears  as  to  the  iflue. 

Nor  was  it  any  wonder  that  thefe  pretences  fliould  take,  (efpe- 
cially  with  pcrfons  of  liberal  education  and  parts,  who  only  were 
capable  of  obferving  thofe  faults  which  gave  occafion  for  them), 
fmce  the  generality  were  prepared  for,  and  inclined  to  fuch  a 
defe&ton,  by  a  long  continance  under  the  external  difpenfation 
of  the  gofpel,  without  any  experience  of  its  power,  the  prevalent 
love  of  iuft,  that  makes   men  impatient  of  any  thing  that  may 

1  have 


74  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE  chap.  i. 

have  the  leaft  tendency  to  reftrain  them  from  purfuing  the  gra- 
tification thereof;  to  which  we  may  add  the  natural  enmity  of 
the  mind  of  man  againrt  the  myrtery  of  the  gofpel. 

There  was  another  thing  which  at  this  time  had  no  fmall 
influence, — -the  philofophical  writings  of  Mr.  Hobbs,  Spinoza, 
and  fome  others  of  the  fame  kidney,  got,  one  way  or  other?  a 
great  vogue  amongft  our  young  gentry  and  ftudents,  whereby 
many  were  poifoned  with  principles  deftru6iive  of  all  true  re* 
ligion  and  morality. 

By  thofe  and  the  like  means,  things  are  now  come  to  that 
pafs,  that  not  a  few  have  been  bold  to  avow  their  apoflacy  from 
the  Chriftian  religion,  not  only  in  converfation,  but  in  print. 
They  difown  the  name  of  Chrift,  call  themfelves  deijlsj  and 
glory  in  that  name.  They  have  publilhed  many  writings  re- 
fle6ling  on  the  fcriptures,  and  juftifying  themfelves  in  rejeding 
them. 

And  we  have  juft  reafon  to  fufpe<?t,  that,  befides  thofe  who 
do  avow  their  principles,  who  are  perhaps  as  numerous  in  thefe 
lands  as  any  where  elfe,  there  are  many,  who  yet  are  alhamed 
to  fpeak  it  out,  who  bear  them  good-will,  and  who  want  onlv  a 
little  time  more  to  harden  themfelves  againft  the  odium  that  this 
way  goes  under,  and  a  fair  occafion  of  throwing  off  the  mafk, 
which  they  yet  think  meet  to  retain.  Of  this  we  have  many  in- 
dicat:ons. 

Many  have  alTumed  an  unaccountable  boldnefs  in  treating  things 
facred  and  ferious  too  freely  in  writing  and  converfation.  They 
make  bold  to  jeft  upon  the  fcriptures,  and  upon  every  cccafjon 
to  traverfe  them.  When  once  men  have  gone  this  length,  the 
veneration  due  to  that  biejied  book  is  gone,  and  they  are  in  a 
fair  way  to  reje6\  it. 

Others  have  made  great  advances  to  this  defe6\ion,  by  difle- 
minatingj  and  entertaining  reproaches  againO  a  Oanding  minif- 
try.  It  is  known  what  contempt  has  been  cafi:  upon  this  order 
of  men,  whom  God  hath  ci-trufted  with  the  gofpel  difpenfaticn, 
and  who,  by  office,  are  obliged  to  maintain  its  honour.  If  this 
order  of  men  fall  under  that  general  contempt,  which  feme  do 
their  utmoll  to  bring  them  to,  relijzion  cannot  long  maintain  irs 
ftation  among  us.  When  the  principal  means  of  the  Lord's  ap- 
pointment are  laid  afide,  or  rendered  ufelefs,  no  other  means 
will  avail. 

And  hereon,  further,  there  follows  a  negle6l  of  attendance 
on  the  miniftry  of  the  word,  which  the  Lord  has  appointed  for 

the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        75 

the  edification  of  the  church,  and  eftablifhing  people  in  the 
faith  of  the  truth  he  has  revealed  to  us  therein.  When  this  once 
begins  to  be  negleded,  men  will  foon  turn  fceptical  and  un- 
concerned about  religion. 

And  further,  it  is  very  obfervable,  that  many  are  ftrengthen- 
ed  in  this  negle6l,  by  principles  calculated  for  this  purpofe ; 
while  the  whole  efficacy  of  preaching  is  made  to  depend,  not 
on  the  blejftng  of  Chrift,  whofe  inftitution  it  is,  or  the  influ- 
ences of  his  Spirit,  which  he  has  promifed  for  fetting  it  home 
on  the  hearers  for  their  convi6tion,  converfion,  and  edification, 
— but  on  the  abilities  2ind.  addrefs  of  the  preachers.  It  is  natural 
lo  conclude,  that  it  is  better  to  ftay  at  home  and  read  fome 
book,  than  to  go  to  fermon,  if  the  preacher  is  not  of  very  un- 
common abilities  :  Which  is  a  principle  avowed  by  many,  and 
their  practice  fuits  their  principles. 

Befides,  which  is  the  true  fpring  of  the  former,  I  am  afraid 
ignorance  of  the  nature  of  revealed  religion^  the  defign  of  its 
inditutions,  and  all  its  principal  concerns,  is  become  more 
common  than  is  ufually  obferved,  even  amongft  men  of  liberal 
education  and  the  befl:  quality.  And  hence  many  of  them  en- 
tertain notions  inconfiftent  with  their  own  religion,  at  firfl  out 
pf  ignorance,  and  afterwards  think  themfelves  in  honour  en- 
gaged to  defend  them,  although  deftru6live  to  the  religion  they 
profefs. 

Add  to  all  this,  that  profanity  in  practice  has,  like  a  deluge, 
overfpread  thefe  lands.  And  where  this  once  takes  place,  love 
to  fin  never  fails  to  engage  men  to  thofe  principles,  which 
may  countenance  them  in  the  courfes  they  love,  and  defign  to 
cleave  to. 

This  feems  plainly  to  be  the  flate  of  matters  with  us  at  pre- 
fent.  And  we  fee  but  little  appearance  of  any  redrefs.  The 
infe£lion  fpreads,  and  many  are  daily  carried  otf  by  it,  both  in 
England  and  Scotland.  Though  it  mufl  be  owned  that  Scot^ 
land,  as  yet,  is  lefs  tainted  with  that  poifon  :  But  thofe  of  this 
nation  have  no  reafon  to  be  fecure,  fince  many  are  infe61:ed,and 
more  are  in  a  forwardnefs  to  it  than  is  comm.only  thought. 

Having  given  this  fliort,  but  I  conceive,  true  account  of  the 
rife  and  growth  of  deifm^  it  now  remains  that  we  confidcr,  what 
thefe  principles  are  which  they  maintain.  The  deifis,  although 
they  are  not  perfe61ly  o?2^  amongft  themfelves,  yet  do  agree  in 
two  things:  i.  They  all  Tt]t€i  revealed  religion,  and  plainly 
maintain  that  all  proitences  to  revelation  are  vain,  cheat  and  im- 

pofturec 


75'  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO   THE         ghap.  ii. 

fo(\upc\  2.  They  all  inainfalri  that  iiatural  religion  is  fuflucient 
10  aniVv-er  all  the  great  ends  of  religion,  and  the  cnly  rule 
whereby  all  our  religious  pia^^ices  are  to  be  fquared.  The 
fii'Jl  of  thefe  alTertions  only  tells  v/hat  their  religion  is  not^ 
and  exprefies  their  op43olition  to  all  revelation,  particularly  to 
Chriftianity  ;  which  has  been  v/oitbily  defended  and  aderted 
againil  all  their  objeclions  by  many  of  late,  and  I  {hall  not 
much  infill:  in  adding  to  uhat  they  hav^  written  to  fuch  ex- 
cellent purpofc.  'T\\Q  Jkond  feUs  us  what  their  religion  is  ; 
:^nd  il  is  this  we  chicily  delign  in  the  following  papers  to  debate 
uiiii  them.  They  have  long  been  upon  the  ojjenfive  part, 
v/hich  is  more  eafy  ;  v^e  defign  now  to  put  them  upon  the  dc 
Jtnlivc, 

They  whp  call  thernfelves  dei/ls,  although  they  thus  far  agree, 
5^et  are  not  all  of  one  Ibrt.  I  find  them,  by  one  of  their  own 
liijiuber,  claPted  into  two  forts,  ??iQrta I  and  immortal*. 

I'iie  iramortal  are  they  who  maintain  z  jiiture  Jlate>  The 
viortal,  they  wlio  deny  o fie.  It  is  with  the  firft  we  are  prin- 
cipally concerned  ,*  yet  I  ihall  in  the  fubfequent  chapter  offer  a 
few  things  with  refpecf  to  the  mortal  dajls*  And  in  what  I 
have  to  iay  of  them  I  fliall  be  very  ihort ;  becaufe  1  conceive, 
what  has  already  been  offered  in  the  introduction,  againR  this 
joi't  of  men,  miglit  almoll  fuperfcuc  any  fuither  difcourfe  about 
ihcm. 


C     H     A     P.       IL 

Mortal  Ddfis  whOi  and  what   Jud^iment  to  he  made  oj  than 
and  their  Smtimcnts* 

TflE  mortal  delfts f  who  alfo  are  called  nominal  deijist  dc" 
nyingvi  future  flail' y  are,  in  etFe6^,  7nere  athcijls.  This  per- 
haps fome  may  think  a  harfli  judgment ;  but  yet  it  is  fuch  as 
the  deids  themfelves,  who  are  on  the  other  fide,  will  allow. 

One  who  ov/ns  hiir.felf  a  deiil,  thus  exprefies  his  mind, — 
**  We  do  believe,  that  there  is  an  inhnitcly  powerful,  wile  and 
**  good  Godj  who  fuperintends  the  adions  of  mankind,  in  or- 
**  der  to  retribute  to  every  one  according  to  their  defeits  :  Nei- 
**  ther  are  we  to  boggle  at   this  creed  ;  for  if  we  do  not  ftick 

''  Xo 

*  Oracles  of  Reafon,  pag.  qn. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        77 

"  to  it,  we  ruin  the  found-ation  of  all  human  happinefs,  and  are 
'''  it]  elFefl  no  better  than  mere  atheifts  *." 

A  further  account  of  this  fort  of  men  we  have  given  us  by 
one,  whom  any  may  judge  capable  enough  for  it,  v.'ho  confi- 
ders  his  way  of  writing,  and  the  account  he  gives  of  himfelf. 
**  1  have  obferved  fome,"  fays  he,  **  who  pretend  ihemfeives 
**  deifts,  that  they  are  men  of  loofe  and  fenfual  lives  ;  and  I 
*'  make  no  wonder  that  they  diilike  the  Chriftian  doctrine  of 
**  felf-denial,  and  the  fevere  threatenings  againft  wilful  finners. 
**  You  may  be  fure  they  will  not  allege  this  reafon  :  But  hav- 
"  ing  read  Spinoza  and  Hobbs,  and  being  taught  to  laugh  at 
**  the  (lory  of  Balaam's  afs,  and  Sampfon's  locks,  they  pro- 
**  ceed  to  ridicule  the  reality  of  all  miracles  and  revelation. 
**  I  have  converfed  with  feveral  of  this  temper,  but  could  ne- 
**  vcr  get  any  of  them  ferious  enough  to  debate  the  reality  of 
**  reiigion,— but  a  witty  jell,  and  t'other  ginfs,  puts  an  end  to 
'*  all  further  confideration  f."  Thefe  are  mere  fceptics  and 
pravSiical  atheifls,  rather  than  real  deifts. 

Now,  it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  debate  with  men  of  this  temper, 
if  they  will  liften  to  arguments,  many  have  faid  enough,  if 
not  to  convince  them,  (for  I  know  it  is  not  an  eafy  matter  to 
convince  fome  men),  yet  to  flop  their  mouths  ;  ard  therefore  I 
Ihail  not  oHer  any  arguments, — only  1  fliall  lay  down  a  few 
clear  principles,  and  from  them  draw  an  injerence  or  two,  which 
will  make  it  evident,  what  judgment  we  are  to  make  of  this 
fort  of  men. 

The  principtes  I  take  for  incontrovertible  are  thefe  which 
follow  :  I.  He  deferves  not  the  name  of  a  man  who  a£ls  no* 
rationally  ;  knowing  what  he  does,  and  to  what  end.  2.  No 
action  which  contributes  not,  at  leaft  in  appearance,  to  inans 
happin*fs  is  worthy  of  him.  3.  The  happinefs  of  a  prefent 
life,  which  is  all  that  thefe  gentleman  allow,  confifls  in  the 
enjoyment  of  things  agreeable  to  our  nature,  and  freedom  from 
thofe  that  are  noifome  to  it.  4.  Man's  nature  is  fuch,  that /ni 
felicity  depends  not  only  on  thefe  things,  which  at  prefent  he 
has^  or  wants;  but  likcwifeon  what  is  pail,  and  what  is  fu- 
ture. A  prol'peft  of  the  one,  and  a  reflexion  on  the  other,  ac- 
cording as  they  are  more  or  lefts  agreeable,  exceedingly  in- 
creafes  his  pleafure  or  pain.  5.  The  hopes  of  obtaining  here- 
after 

*  Letter  to  the  Deids,  pag.  125. 
t  Growth  of  Deifm,  pag.  ^, 


7§  AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE         chap.  lU 

after  the  goo  J  we  at  prefent  want,  and  of  being  freed  from  evils 
we  fuitbr  bv,  mightily  enhances  the  pleafure  of  what  we  pof- 
icfs,  and  allays  the  trouble  that  arifes  from  incumbent  evils. 
6.  So  ftrong  is  the  dcfire  every  one  finds  in  himfelf  of  a  con- 
tinuation in  being,  as  cannot  choofe  but  render  the  thoughts  of 
annihilation  very  terrible  and  irkfome.  7.  The  pra6iice  of 
virtue^  as  it  is  the  moil  probable  mean  of  attaining  y^^z^r^  hap'- 
pinefsf  if  anv  fuch  ftate  be,  fo  it  is  that  which  tends  moft  to 
perfe*:^  and  advance  man's  nature  ;  and  fo  muft  give  the  moft 
Iblid  and  durable  pleafure,  even  here  in  this  life.  8.  It  is  ma- 
licious to  do  what  tends  to  the  obftru6ling  another's  happimjs^ 
when  it  cannot  further  one  s  own*  Few  men  will  queftion  any 
of  thefej  and  if  any  do,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  debate  with 
him.     Now  from  thefe  we  may  fee, 

1.  It  would  contribute  much  to  thofe  gtn\\cm&n''s  prefent  felicity 
to  believe,  (be  it  true  or  falfe)  that  there  is  2i  future  ftate  of  hap* 
pinefs,  fince  the  hopes  of  immutable  and  endlefs  blifs  would  be 
a  nocable  antidote  againrt  the  uneafinefs  of  mind  that  arifes,  not 
only  from  incumbent  evils,  but  alfo  from  thofe  we  fear,  and  the 
inconfiancy  of  our  lliort-lived  enjoyments. 

2.  The  generality  of  maqkind,  elpecally  where  Chrifllanity 
obtains,  being  already  poffeffed  of  the  profpe6t  oijuture  happinefs^ 
which  fupports  them  under  prefent  evils,  arms  them  againft  the 
troublefome  reflections  on  pafi  troubles,  and  fears  of  the  future; 
and  moreover  animates  them  in  the  pra6tice  of  thefe  a61ioiis 
whereby  not  only  their  own  good,  but  that  of  the  focieties 
wherein  they  live,  is  fignally  promoted  ;  all  attempts  to  rob 
them  of  this  hope  are  highly  malicious,  and  import  no  lefs  than 
a  confpiracy  aganil  the  happlnefs  of  mankind,  and  the  good  of 
the  fociety  wherein  they  live:  And  therefore  we  may  fay  ailuredr 
ly,  that  as  thofe  mortal  ddjls  are  much  incommoded  by  their  owq 
opinion  ;  fo  their  attempts  for  its  propagation,  niufi  be  looked 
on  as  proceeding  from  no  good  defign  to  the  refl  of  mankind. 

Here  perhaps  fome  of  them  may  fay,  that  this  opinion  tends 
to  liberate  a  great  part  of  mankind  from  the  difquicting  fears 
of  future  viijeiy. 

To  this  I  anfwer,  i,  I  believe  it  true,  that  their  fears  ai  fu- 
tare  mifery  are  uncafy  to  them;  or  they  have  but  little  hope  of 
future  felicity*  Their  way  of  living  allows  them  none.  But 
thefe  fears  proceed  from  confrience  of  guilt,  and  are  the  genu- 
ine refult  of  avStions,  equally  deftru6\ive  to  the  aCtors,  and  the 
intereft  of  the  reft  of  mankind.     2.  Thefe  fears  have  their  u^e, 

and 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS. '      7^ 

and  ferve  to  deter  from  fuch  evils  as  are  ruining  to  the  perfons 
who  commit  them,  and  to  human  fcciety.  3.  VVhile  this  opinion 
liberates  a  few  of  the  worfl:  of  men,  from  thefe  fears,  which 
are  a  part  of  the  juft  puniftiment  of  their  villanies,  and  embold- 
ens them  to  run  on  in  thofe  evils  which  ruin  themfelves  and  c^ 
thers,  it  difpirits  and  difcourages  the  only  ufeful  part  of  man^ 
kind,  by  filling  them  with  difmal  thoughts  of  annihilation* 
4.  Nor  can  all  that  the  deifls  are  able  to  do,  liberate  them^ 
felves  or  mankind  from  thofe  fears.  The  utm.oft  that  they  can 
pretend,  with  any  (hew  of  reafon,  is,  that  we  have  not  ground 
lo  believe  fuch  a  flate.  Will  this  make  us  fure  that  there  is 
•none  ?  But  of  this  we  have  faid  enough  in  ihet  intrcdu6tion. 

By  what  has  been  faid  it  is  evident,  what  judgment  we  are 
«o  make  of  this  fort  of  deifts.  Their  lives,  writings  and  death, 
ihew  them  to  be  mere  atheids, 

VaninuSy  when  firft  he  appeared  and  wrote  his  Amphithea^ 
trum  ProvidenticR  Bivinx,  fet  out  for  fuch  an  one  that  believed  a 
God'  But  at  length  fpoke  out  plainly  that  ke  believed  none, 
and  was  defervedly  burnt  for  atheifm  at  Thouloufe,  April  9, 
^619.  He  confeifed  there  were  twelve  of  them  (hat  parted  in 
in  company  from  Naples  to  teach  iheir  doctrine  in  all  the  pro- 
vinces of  Europe  *. 

Uriel  Accofla  vJxo^Q.  for  this  opinion,  as  himfelf  tel!s  us  in 
his  Examplar  Vita,  Hu  nance,  which  is  fub joined  to  Li?nburg's 
conference  with  Urobius  the  Jew  f.  His  lad  a61ion  tells  us 
what  man  he  was.  After  he  had  made  a  vain  attempt  to  (hoot 
his  brother,  he  difcharged  a  piftol  into  his  own  br^aii.  This 
fell  out  about  the  twentieth  or  thirtieth  year  of  the  laft  century^ 
So  they  live,  and  fo  they  die* 

Were  this  our  deflgn,  or  if  we  faw  any  need  of  it,  v/e  might 
give  fuch  an  account  of  the  principles,  pra6\ices,  and  tragical 
exits  of  not  a  few  of  this  fort  of  perfons,  as  would  be  fufficient 
to  deter  the  fober  from  following  thtm.  Bt>.t  what  has  been 
faid  is  fufficient  to  difcover  the  dcftruttive  tendency  of  their 
frinie  opinion.  And  further  we  (hall  not  concern  ourfelves 
with  them,  but  go  on  to  that  which  is  mainly  intended  in  this 
4ifcourfe. 

CHAP, 


^  Spe  Great  Geographical  Didionarv, 

i  y.mburgi  Pr^fatio  &  Refpons.     Urielis  Accoftje  Lihro, 


$Q  AN   INQUIRY  INTO    THE   .    chap.  m. 


CHAP.      III. 

Wherein  the  Controvcrfy  betwixt  us  and  the  Immortal  Deijh  is 
fiated  and  clemed, 

THE  immortal  deijls,  who  own  a  future  Jlate^  are  the  only 
perfons  with  v^hom  it  is  worth  while  to  difpute  this  point  about 
xhc  fujjiciency  of  natural  religion.  Before  we  olfer  any  arguments 
on  this  head,  it  is  neceflary  we  ftatc  the  queRion  clearly  ;  and 
it  is  the  more  neceflary,  that  none  of  the  deifls  have  had  the 
courage  or  honefty  to  do  it.  And  here  in  the  entry  \vq  fliall  lay 
down  fome  things,  which  we  think  are  not  to  he  controverted 
on  this  occafion.  And  we  ihall,  after  thefe  conceflions  are  made, 
inquire  what  (lill  remains  in  debate. 

I.  We  look  on  it  as  certain,  that  all  the  world,  in  all  ages, 
hath  been  poflcfled  of  Tome  notion  of  a  God,  of  fome />(??6'(fr  above 
them,  on  whom,  in  more  or  lefs,  they  did  depend;  and  to  whom 
on  this  account,  feme  rerpe£l  is  due.  This  Heathens  have  ob- 
ferved.  CicerOf  amongfl  others,  hath  long  fince  told  us,  "  That 
**  there  is  no  nation  lb  barbarous  that  owns  not  feme  god,  that 
"  has  not  fome  anticipations  or  impreffions  from  nature,  of  a 
'*  God*."  Nor  is  thisany  more,  than  what  we  are  told,  Rom. 
i.  19,  20,  &c.  that  the  Gentiles  have  fome  notions  of  truth 
concerning  God,  which  they  hold  in  unrighteoufnefs ;  that  God, 
partly  by  erecting  a  tribunal  in  their  own  breaOs,  which  they 
cannot  decline,  though  they  never  fo  m.uch  would,  and  partly 
by  prefenting  to  their  eyes  thofe  vifible  works  that  bear  a  lively 
imprefs  of  his  invifihle  power  and  Godhead,  hath,  as  it  were, 
forced  upon  them  the  knowledge  of  fome  part  of  that,  which 
the  aportle  calls  yv^f^"  -^S  S^r,  or  that  which  may  he  known  of 
God,  Whence  they  all  in  fome  mcafure  knczu  God,  though 
they  glorified  him  net  as  God. 

The  floties  fome  have  told  us  of  nations  that  have  no  notion 
of  a  God,  upon  fcarch  are  found  falfe.  And  for  fome  lewd 
perfons,  who  have  pretended  to  a  fettled  perfuafion,  they  are 
not  to  be  credited.  We  have  fufFicient  reafon  to  look  on  them 
as  liars,  or  at  leaft,  not  admit  them  witnelfcs  in  this  cafe. 

2.  I  do  think  that  the  knowledge  of  feme  of  the  more  ob- 
vious laws  of  nature,  and  their  obligation,  hath  univerially  ob- 
tained, 

*  Cicero  de  Natura  Deorum,  Lib.  i. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        Si 

tained  *.  The  Gentiles,  all  oF  them,  do  by  nature  thofe  things, 
that  is,  the  material  part  of  thofe  duties,  which  the  law  of  na- 
ture enjoins,  zukich  jhews  thz  zocrk  of  the  latv,  or  fome  part 
of  it  at  leaft,  to  bt  zontttn  in  their  hearts,  fince  ihey  do 
fome  things  it  enjoins.  1  do  not  think  that  this  writing  &f  the 
law  imports  innate  ideas,  or  innace  aclual  knowledge,  wliich  Mr. 
Lock  hath  heen  at  fo  much  pains  to  diiprove  f,  with  what  fuc* 
cefs  I  inquire  not  now.  Some  think,  that  while  he  grants  the 
ielf-evidence  of  a  natural  propenfity  of  our  thoughts  toward 
fome  notions,  which  others  call  innate^  he  grants  ail  that  the 
more  judicious  intend  by  that  expreffion.  Others  think  that 
iVIr.  Lock's  arguments  conclude  only  the  improbability  of  hi' 
nate  ideas,  and  that  they  are  to  be  rejected,  rather  for  want  of 
evidence  for  them,  than  for  the  llrength  of  what  is  faid  againft 
them  %'  But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  neither  the  apollle's 
fcope  nor  words  oblige  us  to  maintain  them.  What  is  intend- 
ed may  be  reduced  to  two  affertions,  viz.  That  men  are  born 
with  fuch  faculties,  which  cannot,  after  they  are  capable  of  ex- 
ercifing  them,  but  admit  the  obligation  and  binding  force  of 
fome,  at  leafl:,  of  the  laws  of  nature,  when  they  are  fairly  of- 
fered to  their  thoughts ;  and,  That  man  is  fo  flated,  that  he  can- 
not mifs  occafions  of  thinking  of,  or  coming  to  the  know- 
ledge of  thofe  laws  of  nature.  **  Homines  nafci  cognitione 
**  aliqua  Dei  inftru61os,  baud  dicimus  :  Nullam  omnino  ha- 
**  bent,  fed  vi  cognofcendi  dicimus;  neque  ita  naturalitcr  cog- 
**  nofcunt  atque  fentiunt,  inntam  potentiam  Deum  cognoi- 
**  cendi,  ad  cultum  ejus  aliquo  modo  praslhndum,  ftimulantcm, 
**  fponte  fe  in  adultis  rationis  compotibus,  non  minus  ccrto  & 
**  neceflario  quam  ipfum  ratiocinari,  exerturam,  unumquemque 
*'  retlnere,  ratio  nulla  ef^  cur  opinemur  cum  fcntiamus,''  fays 
the  learned  Dr.  Owen  J. 

3-  It 

*  I  inquire  not  whether  tliey  were  acquainted  with  the  proper  and 
true  grounds  of  the  obligation  of  thofe  laws  they  owned  obligatory. 

+  Lock's  Efiay  on  Human  Underftanding,  Book  i.  Ch.  4.'  §  11. 

%  Becconfail  of  Nat.  Relig.  Ch.  6.  §  i,  2. 

§  Theologumen.  Lib.  1.  Cap.  5.  Par-  2.—"  We  do  not  faj^  tliat 
«  men  are  born  with  any  aftual  knowledge  of  God,  as  they  have 
**  no  knowledge  at  all  when  they  are  born  ;  but  we  fay  that  they  are 
«  born  with  a  capacity  of  knowing  him,  and  that  they  do  not  fonataral- 
"  ly  know  as  they  feel  this  implanted  capacity  of  knowing  God,  which 
«  ftirs  them  up  to  worfliiohini  in  fome  manner.     And  that  this  capa- 

K 


83  AN   INQ^UIRY  INTO   THE       chap.  in. 

3.  It   IS  unqucHionable,    and    has  been  fufficiently  attefted 
by  the  nations,  and  even  by  fome  of  the  worft  of  them,  that 
man    has    a  confcitnce^  that  fometlmes  drags  the  greateft  and 
moft  obftinate  offenders  to  its  tribunal,  in  their  own  breafts, 
accufes  them,  condemns  them,  and   in  fome   fort  executes  the 
fentence   againft   them,  for   their  counteraiSiing  known   duty, 
how  little  foeverthey  know.     A  Heathen  poet  could  fay, 
"——Prima  tji  hdtc  ultiOf  quod  fe 
Judice,  nemo  nocens  ahfolvitur^  improha  quamvis 
Gratia  fallacis  pratons  vicerit  urnam*. 

4*  We  own  that  thofe  laws  of  nature,  which  arc  of  abfolutc 
ncccility  to  the  fupport  of  government  and  order  in  the  worJd, 
and  the  maintenance  of  human  fociety,  are,  in  a  good  mea- 
fure,  knowable  by  the  light  of  nature,  and  have  been  generally 
known. 

5.  We  willingly  admit  that,  what  by  tradition,  and  what  by 
the  improvement  of  nature's  light,  many  of  the  wifer  Heathens 
have  come  to  know,  and  exprefs  many  things  excellently,  as 
to  the  nature  of  God,  man's  duty,  the  corruption  of  nature,  a 
future  ftatc,  &c.  and  fome  of  them  have  lived  nearer  up  to  the 
knowledge  that  they  had  than  others :  For  which  they  are 
highly  to  be  commended,  and  1  do  not  grudge  them  their  praifc. 

6.  I  look  on  it  as  certain,  that  the  light  of  nature,  had  it 
been  duly  improven,  might  have  carried  them  in  thefe  things, 
and  others  of  the  like  nature,    further  than  ever  any  went. 

But  after  all  thefe  things  are  granted,  the  queilion  concern- 
ing \\\t  Jufficitncy  of  natural  religion^  remains  untouched. 

For  clearing  this,  it  is  further  to  be  obferved,  that,  when 
wc  fpcak  of  the  fufficiency  of  natural  religion,  or  thofe  noti- 
ces of  God,  and  the  way  of  worfhipping  him,  which  arc  at- 
tainable by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  without  revelation,  we 
confider  it  as  a  mtan  in  order  to  fome  tnd*  For  hy  Jufficitncy 
is  meant,  that  aptitude  of  a  mean  for  compaiTing  fome  cnd^ 
that  infers  a  neceffary  conne6\ion  betwixt  the  dut  uje^  that  is, 

fuch 

"  city  will  no  lefs  naturally  and  fpontaneoufly  exert  itfelf  in  all  adults 
*«  that  are  poffeffed  of  reafon,  than  that  of  reafoning  itfelf,  there  is 
«  no  reafon  why  we  Ihould  deliver  as  an  opinion,  as  we  feel  it  to  be 
«  the  cafe." 

*  «*  This  is  the  firft  part  of  the  punifhment,  that  every  guilty  per- 
«  fon  is  eendemned  by  himfelf,  although  wicked  interell  £ould  hare 
«  overcome  the  integrity  of  his  judge." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        83 

fuch  an  ufe  of  the  mean,  as  the  perfon  to  whom  it  is  faid  to  be 
Jufficitnt,  is  capable  to  make  of  it,  and  the  attainment  of  the 
end. 

Now  natural  religion,  under  this  confideration,  may  be  af- 
ferted  fufficient  or  not,  according  as  it  is  looked  at  with  rcfpedl 
to  one  end,  or  another  :  For  it  is  ufeful  to  feveral  purpofes, 
and  has  a  refpe6^  to  feveral  ends. 

I.  It  may  be  confidered  with  refpe(51:  to  human  fociety,  up- 
on which  religion  has  a  considerable  influence.     "  There  could 
**  never  poiTibly  be  any  government   fettled   amongft  athcifts, 
**  or  thofe  who  pay  no  refpe6l  to  a  Deity.     Remove  God  once 
**  out  of  heaven,  and  there  will  never  be  any  god's  upon  earth, 
**  If  man's  nature   had  not  fomething  of  fubjc<S^ion    in  it  to  4 
**  Supreme  Being  above  him,  and  inherent  principles  obliging 
**  him  how   to  behave  himfelf  toward  God,  and  toward  the  reft 
**  of  the  world,  government  could  have  never  been   introduced, 
**  nor  thought  of.     Nor  can  there  bp  the  Icaft  mutual    fecurity 
**  betA^een  governors  and  governed,  where  no  God  is  admitted. 
**  For  it  is  an  acknowledging  of  God,  in   his  fupreme   judg* 
**  ment  over  the  world,  that  is  the  ground  of  an  oath  ;  and  up- 
•*  on  which  the  validity  of  ^U  human  engagements  do  depend,'* 
fays  an  excellent    perfon  *.     And  the  famed  Cicero  expreffe* 
himfelf  very  fully  to  the  fame    purpofe.  Speaking  of  religion 
and  piety,  he  {zySj—Ouibusfublatis,  perturbatio  vita  fequitur , 
&  magna  conjufio,  atque  hand  fciof  an  pietate  advcrfus   Deojf 
fublata,  Jides  etiam,  &  Jo  cut  as  humani  generis,  ^  una  excels 
UntiJJima  virtus,  juftitia  toliatur\.     If  the  queftion  concerned 
this  end,  we  might  own  natural   religion  feme  way  fufficient 
to  be  a  foundation  for  human  fociety,  and  fome  order  and  go- 
vernment in  the  world  :   For  it  is  in  fa6t  evident,  that  where  re- 
velation has  been  wanting,  there  have  been  feveral  well  formed 
governments.     Though  ftiH  it    muft    be  faid,  that   they  were 
obiged  to  tradition  for  many  things  that  were  of  ufe,  and  to  have 
recourfe  io  pretended  revelation,  where  the  real  was  wanting  J. 

Which 

*  See  Ch.  Wolfeley*s  Unrcaf.  of  Athcifm,  p?g.  i  J2,  See, 
t  De  Natura  Dcorum,  Lib.  i,  m^hi.  pag.  5.  " — Which  being 
*'  taken  away, 'a  great  diforder  and  confufion  in  life  rauft  follow  ;  and 
«<  I  know  not  whether,  after  piety  to  the  Gods  is  taken  away,  truth  and 
*[  the  focial  affedions,  and  juftice,  the  moft  excellent  of  the  virtues, 
"  would  not  at  the  fame  time  be  taken  away," 
%  See  Amy  raid  on  Reli*;.  Part  a.    Cap.  8. 


;?4  AN   INQ_UIRY   INTO   THE       chap,  in. 

Which  -fi-icws  revelation   necefll^ry,  if    not   to    the  beings   yet 
to  the  uetl-being  of  iocicty. 

2.  Natural  religion  may  be  confidered  in  its  fubferviency 
to  God's  moral  government  of  the  world  ;  and  with  refpe^i  to 
tliis,  it  has  feveral  confiderable  ufes,  that  I  cannot  enter  uoort 
the  detail  of.  It  is  the  meafure  of  God's  judicial  proceedings; 
v.'ith  rcipeCl  to  thofe  of  mankind  who  want  revelation  ;  and 
as  to  \\\\%,  there  i-s  one  thing  that  is  ufually  obferved,  that  it  is 
fufjicient  to  jujlijx  God  in  puivMiing  [inners*  That  God  fome- 
times,  even  here  in  time,  punilbes  offenders,  and,  by  the  fore- 
bcdir^'s  of  their  ccnfciences,  gives  them  dreadful  prefages  of 
a  progrefg  in  his  feverity  againil  them,  after  this  life,  cannot 
ivcli  be  denied.  Now  certainly  there  muft  be  fome  meafure^ 
uhereby  God  proceeds  in  fin's  matter.  Where  there  is  no  lazv, 
there  is  nx)-trL.'»JgrefJion.  Puniihments  cannot  be  inflicted,  but 
f:r  the  tfanJgfciTion,  and  according  to  the  tenor  of  a/^rz).  And 
this  lav/,  if  it  is  holy,  juj}.y  'dnd  good  in  its  pi'eceptSy  and  equal 
in  its  Jandiod,  is  not  only  the  incafure  whereby  the  governor 
proceeds  in  punifhing  offenders  ;  but  that  which  juflilies  him 
in  tlie  punishment  of  them.  It  is  needlefr,  to  fpeak  of  the 
grant  of  reruards  in  this  caie  ;  becaufe  with  refpe6\  to  them, 
noe  only  jujlice,  but  ^s^rai.e  and  bounty  have  place,  which  are 
i!Ot  r^ilnctcd  to  any  iuch  nice  ir.enfures  in  the  dilpenfation  of 
favrur?;.  as  jiijiice  is  in  the  execution  of  })uni{hmerits.  Now  if 
iiatur-al  rciigion  is  ccnfidered  wiih  rei'peiH  to  this  end,  we  iay 
Ix  is  fvjfimerit  to  jutlify  God,  and  fuliy  clear  him  from  any 
imputatic  n  of  injultice  or  cruelty,  whatever  puni/b.ments  he 
rryav,  eitiier.in  (ime  or  after  time,  infiiit  upon  mankind  who 
want  revelation-  There  ar^  none  of  them  come  to  age,  who— 
!•  Have  not  fallen  fhort  of  knowing  many  duties,  which  they 
might  have  known.  2.  V\'ho  liave  not  emitted  many  duties, 
which  they  knew  themfelves  obliged  to.  And  3.^  Who  have 
v.oi  done  what  they  kne.w  they  ought  net  to  have  done,  and 
rriaht  have  forborn.  If  thefe  three  are  made  out,  as  no  doubt 
thev  m^y  be  againfl  all  m''n,  I  do  not  fee  what  lealon  any 
will   have  to  implead  God  either  of  hard(l)ip  or  injuftice. 

fliere  are  4  know,  who:  think  it  very  hard,  that  thcfe  na- 
tural notices  of  God  and  reiigiun  ibould  he  lufjicwnt  to  juftify 
God  in  adjudging  tbofc,  wlio  couniera61  then),  to  future  ami 
eter r.al punifriTnents ,  while  ye.t  fuch  an  attendance  to,  and  com- 
pliance with  them  as  m.en  aie  capable  cf,  in  their  prefent  cir- 
cuiTiliances,  is  not  fufficient  to  entitle  us  Xq  etcjiial  rcizcirds* 

But 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        85 

But  if,  in  this  matter,  any  injuftice  is  charged  upon  God,  who 
fliall  manage  the  plea?  Shall  they  who  tranfgrersand  contraveen 
Thole  notices  do  it?  But  what  injuftice  meet  they  with,  if  they 
are  condemned  for  not  knowing  what  they  might  have  known? 
n*t  doing  what  they  were  obliged  to  do,  and  were  able  to  do? 
nnd  for  doing  what  they  might  and  Ihould  have  forborn?  If  all 
thefe  may  be  laid  to  their  charge,  though  there  were  no  nfore,what 
have  they  to  fay  for  themfelves,  or  againft  God  ?  They  furely 
have  no  reafon  to  complain.  If  any  have  reafon  to  complain,  it 
miift  be  they  who  have  walked  up  to  the  natural  notices  of  God. 
But  where  is  there  any  fuch?  We  mav  fparc  our  vindication  till 
fiich  an  one  be  found.  Nor  is  it  eafy  to  prove  that  man's  obedience 
though  perfedl,  muft  necelfarily  entitle  to  eternal  felicity.  And 
he  who  (hail  undertake  to  implead  God  cf  injullice  upon  the 
account  of  fuch  a  fentence,  as  that  we  nor/  fpeak  of,  will  not 
find  it  eafy  to  make  good  his  charge. 

Were  the  difficulty  thus  moulded,  That  it  Is  hard  to  pretend 
that  thcfe  natural  notices  of  God  are  fufficient  to  juftify  God  in 
condemning  the  tranfgrelTors  of  them  to  future  puniHiments, 
while  punctual  complance  with  them  is  not  fufficient  to  fave 
thofe,  who  yield  this  obedience,  from  thofe  punifnments,  which 
the  contraveeners  are  liable  to  for  their  tranfgreffion, — though 
it  were  thus  moulded,  it  would  be  a  hard  talk  to  make  good 
fuch  a  charge.  But  I  am  not  concerned  in  it;  nor  are  any,  who 
judge  the  perfons,  who  have  gone  fartheft  in  this  compliance, 
liable  upon  other  accounts  ;  becaufe  rhey  flill  own  their  com- 
pliance lo  far  available  to  them,  as  to  fave  them  from  thofe  de- 
gress of  wrath,  which  deeper  guilt  would  have  inferred. 

3.  Other  ends  there  are,  with  refpeft  to  which  natural  religion 
mav  be  confidered,  which  I  fhall  pafs  without  naming,  and  fnall 
otily  make  mention  of  that  which  we  are  concerned  in,  and  Is 
aimed  at  in  the  prefent  controverfy,  and  that  is,  thejuiure  happi- 
r.efs  of  man  in  the  eiijoyment  of  God,  This  certainly  is  xViefupra/i: 
and  ultimate  end  of  religion  with  refpecl  to  vian  himfclf.  For 
that  the  Glory  of  God  is  the  chief  end  abfolutely,  and  muft,  in 
all  refpcc>,  have  the  preference,  I  place  beyond  debate. 

Nov/  it  is  as  to  this  end,  that  the  queflion  about  the  fuf- 
ficiency  cf  natural  religion  is  principally  m.dved.  And  the 
que^ion,  in  fhort,  amounts  to  this,  Whether  the  notices  of  God 
and  religion,  which  all  men  by  the  light  cf  nature  have,  or  at 
leaft  by  the  mere  improvement  of  their  natural  abilities  without 
revelation,  may  have,  are  fufficient  to  dlre6\  them  in  the  way  io 

eternal 


85  AN   INQ^UIRY  INTO   THE       «map.  ni. 

eternal  blcffsdnefs,  fatisfv  them  that  fuch  a  Oate  is  attainable, 
and  point  out  the  way  how  it  is  to  be  attained  ;  and  whether  by 
that  practical  compliance  with  thofe  notices,  which  man  in  his 
prefent  ftate  is  capable  of,  he  may  certainly  attain  to  acceptance 
with  God,  pleafe  him,  and  obtain  this  eternal  happinefs  in  the 
enjoyment  of  him?  The  deifts  are  for  the  affirmative,  as  we 
fhall  afterwards  make  appear,  when  we  confider  their  opinions 
more  p:irticular!y. 

But  before  v/e  proceed  to  offer  arguments,  it  will  be  needful  t» 
branch  this  queftion  into  feveral  particulars  that  are  included 
m  it,  that  we  may  the  better  conceive  of,  ^nd  take  up  the 
import  of  it,  and  how  much  is  included  and  wrapt  up  in  this 
afTertion,  The  quertion  which  we  have  propofed  in  general, 
may  be  turned  into  thefe  five  fubordinate  queries  : 

1.  Whether,  by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  we  can  difcover 
an  eternal  flate  of  happinefs,  and  know  that  this  is  attainable  ? 
Unlefs  this  is  done,  nothing  in  matters  of  religion  is  done.  It 
is  impoffible  that  nature's  light  can  give  any  dire6tions  as  to 
the  means  of  attaining  future  happinefs,  if  it  cannot  fatisfy  us 
ehat  there  is  fuch  a  ftate. 

2.  Whether  men,  left  to  the  condu6^  of  the  mere  light  of 
nature,  can  certainly  difcover  and  find  out  the  way  of  attain- 
ing it  ?  that  is.  Whether,  by  the  light  of  nature,  we  can  know 
and  find  out  all  that  is  required  of  us,  in  the  way  of  duty,  iri 
order  to  our  eternal  felicity  ?  If  the  affirmative  ischofen,  it  mufl 
be  made  appear  by  nature's  light,  what  duties  arc  abfolutely 
neceilary  to  this  purpofe;  that  thofe  which  arc  prefcribcd  are 
indeed  duties;  and  that  they  are  all  that  arc  neccfTary  in  order 
to  the  attainment  of  the  end,  if  they  are  complied  withal.  Al- 
though we  fhould  have  it  never  fo  clearly  made  out,  that  there 
is  a  future  ftate  of  happinefs,  yet  if  we  are  left  at  an  utter  lofs 
3s  to  the  means  of  attaining  it,  we  are  no  better  for  the  difco- 
very. 

3.  Whether  nature's  light  gives  fuch  a  full  and  certain  dif- 
covery  of  both  thcfe  as  the  cafe  feems  to  require  ?  Confidering 
what  a  cafe  man  at  prefent  is  in,  to  hope  for  an  eternity  of  hap- 
^oinefs,  is  to  look  very  high  :  And  any  man,  who  in  his  prefent 
circumftances,  Oiall  entertain  fuch  an  expe<Sfation,  on  mere 
furmifes,  fufpicions  and  may- he's,  may  be  reproached  by  the 
world,  and  his  o  vn  heart,  as  a  fool.  To  keep  a  man  up  in 
the  fteady  impredion,  and  expe6tation  of  fo  great  things,  con- 
jectures, fuppofitions,  probabilities,  and  confufcd  general  hints, 

'arc' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        87 

are  not  fufficicnt.  Again,  there  are  huge  difficulties  to  be  fur- 
tiaounted  in  the  way  to  thib  bleffednefs,  which  are  obvious  and 
certain.  Senfiblc  lodes  are  fometimes  to  be  Tuftained,  fenfible 
pains  to  be  undergone,  and  fenfible  dangers  to  be  looked  in  the 
face.  Now  the  queliion  is,  Whether  is  there  fuch  a  clear  and 
certain  knowledge  of  thefe  attainable,  as  the  importance  of  the 
cafe,  the  ftrefs  that  is  to  be  laid  on  them,  and  the  dangers  that 
are  to  be  encountered  for  them,  requires  ?  Certain  it  is,  it 
will  not  be  fuch  notices  as  moft  pleafe  themfelves  with,  tha^ 
will  be  able  to  anfwer  this  end. 

4.  Whether  the  evidence  of  the  attainablenefs  of  a  future 
ftate  of  happinefs,  and  of  the  way  to  it,  is  fuch  as  fuits  the  capa- 
cities of  all  concerned  ?  Every  man  has  a  concernment  in  this 
matter.  The  deirts  inquire  after  a  religion  that  is  able 
to  fave  all,  whereof  every  man,  if  he  but  pleafe,  may  have 
the  eternal  advantage.  Novi^  then  the  queflion  is.  Whe- 
ther the  cafe  is  fo  dated,  as  that  every  man,  who  is  in  earncf^, 
if  he  has  but  the  ufeof  reafon,  however  (hallov/  his  capacity  is, 
how  great  foever  his  inevitable  entanglements  and  hinderanccs 
frxym  clofe  application  are,  may  attain  to  this  certainty  about 
this  end,  and  ihc  way  to  ii?  For  it  muft  be  allowed  that  there  is 
a  vart  difference  among  men  as  to  capacity.  Men  are  no  more 
of  one  meafure  in  point  of  intellectual  abilities,  than  in  ftature. 
That  may  be  out  of  the  reach  of  one,  which  another  may  eafily 
attain  to.  Now,  may  as  much  be  certainly  known  by  the 
meaneft  capacity  as  is  neceffaiy  for  him  to  know  ?  Again,  all 
men  have  not  alike  ieifure.  That  may  be  impoffible  to  roe,  if 
I  am  a  poor  man,  obliged  to  work  hard  to  earn  my  own  and 
family's  bread,  which  would  not  be  fo  if  1  had  Ieifure  and  op« 
portunity  to  follow  my  ftudies.  Now,  if  thefe  difcoveries, 
both  as  to  their  truth,  certainty  and  fuitablenefs,  are  not  fuch 
as  the  meaneft,  notwithfianding  any  Inevitable  hinderances 
he  may  be  under,  may  reach,  they  will  not  anfwer  the  end. 

5.  Whether,  fuppofing  all  the  former,  every  man,  however 
furroundcd  with  temptations,  and  inveigled  with  corrupt  in- 
clinations, or  other  hinderances,  which  he  cannot  evite,  is  yet 
able,  without  any  fupply  of  fupernatural  firength,  to  comply 
fo  far  with  all  thofe  duties,  as  is  abfolutely  needful  in  order  to 
obtain  this  eternal  happinefs?  Whatever  our  knowledge  is, 
we  are  not  the  better  for  it,  unlefs  we  are  able  to  yield  a  prac- 
tical compliance. 

The  deifts  have  the  affirmative  of  all  thefe  queflions  to  make 

good# 


8S  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE        chap,  iv, 

good.  How  thcv  acquit  themfelves  in  this,  we  fliall  fee  after- 
wards. The  fafk,  as  any  one  may  fee,  is  fufficiently  difficult. 
And  I  do  not  know,  that  any  one  of  them  who  has  yet  wrote, 
hath  given  any  evidence  that  they  undeiOood  the  ftate  of  the 
queftion  in  its  full  extent.  They  huddle  it  up  in  the  dark, 
that  the  weaknefs  of  their  proof  may  not  appear.  And  per- 
liaps  they  are  not  willing  to  apply  their  thoughts  fo  clofely  to 
the  fubje6l,  as  is  requifite,  in  order  to  take  up  the  true  ftate  of 
the  controverfy. 

The  more  remifs  and  carelefs  they  have  been  this  way,  we 
had  fo  much  the  more  to  do  to  Aate  the  queftion  truly  betwixt 
us  and  them.  And  having  done  this,  v/e  fhall  next  proceed  to 
make  good  our  part  of  it. 

A  negative  is  not  eafily  proven,  which  puts  us  at  fome  lofs. 
It  has  been  denied  that  it  can  in  fome  cafes  be  proven.  But 
we  hope,  in  this  cafe,  we  are  able  to  offer  fuch  reafons  as  will 
juftify  us  in  holding  the  negative  in  this  debate.  And  wc  {l»all 
fee  next  whether  they  are  able  to  demonfirate  the  affirmative^ 
and  offer  as  good  reafons  for  it,  as  we  fhall  give  againrt  it. 
And  it  is  but  reafonable  they  ihould  offer  better,  in  a  matter 
of  fo  great  concern. 


C    H     A    P.      IV. 

Proving  the  Infufficiency  of  Natural  Religion^  from  the  Infuf- 
ficiency  of  its  Difcoveries  of  a  Deity. 

THOUGH  it  belongs  to  the  afiferters  of  \\\q Efficiency  of 
natural  religion,  to  juflify  by  argument  their  affertion,  and  we 
v/ho  are  upon  the  negative,  might  fuperfede  any  further  debate 
until  fuch  time,  as  we  fee  how  they  can  acquit  themfelves  here  ; 
yet  truth,  not  triumph,  being  the  defign  of  our  engaging  in 
the  contefl,  that  none  may  think  we  are  without  reafon  in  our 
denial,  and  that  wc  put  them  upon  the  proof,  only  to  difficult 
them,  we  fhall  now  by  fome  arguments  endeavour  to  evince  the 
infufficiency  of  natural  religion. 

The  firli  argument  1  (liall  improve  to  this  purpofe  is  deduced 
from  the  infufficiency  of  thofe  difcoveries,  which  the  light  of  na- 
ture is  able  to  make  of  God.  Nothing  is  more  plain  than  this, 
that  religion  is  founded  upon  the  knowledge  of  the  Deity  ;  and 
that  our  regard  for  him  will  be  anfwerable  to  the  knowledge 

we 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       89 

wc  have  of  him.  That  religion  therefore  which  is  defe6live 
here  is  lame  with  a  witnefs  :  And  if  nature's  light  cannot  af* 
ford  fuch  notices  of  the  Deity,  as  are  fufficient  or  neceffary  to 
beget  and  maintain  religion  amongft  men,  then  it  can  never 
with  any  rational  man  be  allowed  fufficient  to  dire6\  men  in 
religion. 

Now,  for  clearing  this  argument,  feveral  things  are  to  be  dif- 
courfed.  And  firft  of  all,  it  is  requifite,  that  we  ftate  fuch  a 
notion  of  religion  in  general,  as  may  be  allowed  to  pafs  with 
all,  who  are,  or  can  reafonably  be  fuppofed  competent  judges 
in  fuch  matters.  Religion  then,  in  general,  may  be  juftly 
faid  to  import  that  veneration,  rej'peci  or  regard ^  which  is  due 
from  the  rational  creature,  in  his  whole  coiirfe  or  life,  to  the 
fupreme  fuper eminently  excellent  Beings  his  Creator,  Preferverj 
Lord  or  Governor  and  Benefador* 

The  aBions  of  the  rational  creature,  which  may  come  under 
the  notion  of  religion,  are  of  two  ibrts ;  Some  of  them  do  di- 
rectly, prop'erly  and  immediately  import  a  regard  or  refpe<5^  to 
God  as  their  end  ;  which  they  are  immediately  and  properly 
defigned  to  exprefs.  Such  a61:sare  called  aBs  of  worfiip.  And 
religion  is  more  eminently  thought  to  confift  in  thefe,  and  that 
not  without  reafon.  Yea,  by  fome  it  is  wholly,  and  againft 
all  reafon,  confined  to  them,  and  circumfcribed  within  thofe 
bounds.  Again,  there  are  other  a6\ions,  which,  though  they 
have  other  more  proper,  dire6l  and  immediate  ends,  on  account 
whereof  they  undergo  various  denominations,  yet  they  alfo 
are,  or  may  be,  and  certainly  (hould  be  fubordinate  to  that, 
which,  though  it  is  not  the  proper,  moft  immediate,  and  dif- 
tinguilhing  end  of  thefe  actions,  yet  is  the  common  and  ulti- 
mate end,  at  which  all  a  man's  anions  Ihould  be  levelled. 
Now  all  the  a6lions  of  a  rational  creature,  which  are  of  this 
laft  fort,  as  referred  to  a  Deity,  and  importing  fomewhat  of  re- 
ligion, may  be  termed  a6^s  of  7noral  obedience.  In  fo  far  they 
are  religious,  and  come  within  the  compafs  of  our  confideration, 
as  they  exprefs  any  refpe£l  to  God.  And  they  exprefs  and 
import  regard  to  God,  in  as  far  as  they  quadrate  with  the  mo- 
ral law,  which  is  the  inflrument  of  God's  moral  government  of 
the  v/orld  ;  and  therefore  if  they  are  right  and  agreeable  to  this 
rule,  they  may  be  termed  ads  of  moj;al  obedience,  to  diftin- 
guiCn  them  from  thefe  ads,  which  are  folely  and  more  flri6\ly 
religious,  and  are  called  a6ts  of  worlhip. 

But 

L 


90  AN    INQ_UIRY    INTO   THE        chap.  iv. 

But  to  rpeak  fomewhat  more  particularly  cf  this  regard  that 
IS  due  to  God,  it  is  as  evident  as  any  thing  can,  that  it  mufl 
be, 

1.  In  \\s  Jor?nal  nature  different  from  that  refpetS^,  uhich 
we  may  allov/abiy  pay  to  any  creature  ,*  that  is,  it  mufi  be 
given  on  accounts  no  way  common  to  him  with  any  of  the 
creatures,  but  on  account  of  thofe  diftinguilhing  excellencies, 
which  are  his  incommunicable  glory.  None  can  reafonably 
deny  this,  fince  it  muft  be  allowed  by  all,  that  religious  refpeB 
due  to  God,  and  civil  rejpetl  due  to  creatures  are  difierent, 
and  muft  be  principally  differenced  by  the  grounds  whereon 
the  refpe6t  to  che  one  or  other  is  paid.  Now  the  grounds 
whereon  this  homage  is  due  unto  the  Deity,  arc,  the  fuperemi- 
nent,  nay,  infmite  excellency  of  his  nature  and  perfe61ions, 
and  his  indiiputably  fupreme,  abfoiute  and  independent  fo- 
vereignty  over  all  his  creatures,  v^hich  flands  eternally  firm 
and  undiaken,  as  being  fupported  by  that  Jupereniinency  of  his 
excellency^  his  creation,  prtjtrvation,  and  benefits'  Now  none 
of  thefe  grounds  are,  in  any  degree,  comm.unicabls  to  the 
creatures  ;  and  fo  to  talk  of  a  religious  worfhip  due  to  the  crea- 
Jure,  is  to  fpeak  nonfenfe  uith  a  witnefs. 

2.  This  veneration  we  give  to  God  muR  be  i-.tenfively,  or 
as  to  degree,  not  only  fuperior  to  that  which  we  give  to  any 
creature,  but  even  Jupreme.  It  is  not  enough,  that  we  love 
God  on  accounts  peculiar  to  him  ;  but  we  muft  love  him  with 
a   love  fuperior   to    that  which  we  give    any  creature,  and  au" 

Jwerahle  to  thofe  accounts,  whereon  we  do  love  him.  And 
the  like  may  be  faid  as  to  other  inOances.  There  is  no  need 
of  infixing  in  the  proof  of  this.  Would  our  king  be  pleafed, 
if  we  paid  him  no  more  refpe61  than  we  do  his  fervant  ?  Is 
the  diftance  betwixt  God  and  tlie  highcil  creature  lefs  confider- 
^ble,  than  that  which  is  betwixt  a  king  and  his  meanefl  fub- 
je<5l  ?  Nay,  is  it  not  infinitely  more?  How  ran  it  then  rea- 
fonably be  expecSied  that  the  fame  degree  of  refpe6l  we  pay 
to  the  creatures,  will  find  acceptance,  or  anfwer  the  duty  we 
owe  to  the  glorious  and  evcr-blefi'cd  Lord  God? 

3.  This  veneration  muft  be  extenfively  fuperior  to  that  paid 
to  any  of  the  creatures.  Our  regard  to  the  Deity  mufl  not  be 
confmed  to  one  fort  of  our  a6\ions,  (thofe,  for  inHance,  which 
are  religious  in  a  JlriB  Jenfe,  or  more  plainly,  ads  ofwovjliip)  ; 
but  it  muft  run  through  every  a6^.ion  of  our  life,  inWard  and 
outvv'ard.     Every  a61ion  is  a  dependent  of  God's,  and  owes  him 

homage. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  PvlODERM  DEISTS.        91 

homage.  It  13  otherwife  wltli  men  ;  for  to  one  fort  of  men,  we 
may  owe  refpe6i,  in  one  fort  of  our  avftions,  and  owe  them  none 
in  another,  A  child,  in  filial  duties,  owes  his  hiher  rc^JpeSl ; 
.as  a  fubjecl,  he  owes  his  governor  reverence  ;  and  fo  of  other 
inftances  of  a  like  nature:  But  to  no  one  creature  is  he,  in  all 
re/'pecls,  fubjeci,  or  obliged  by  every  a6tion  to  exprefs  any  re- 
gard. And  the  reafon  is  plain  ;  he  is  fubje6^  to  none  of  them 
in  all  refpe^fts  wherein  he  is  capable  of  a6iing.  But,  with  re- 
ipecl  to  God,  the  matter  is  quite  otherwife:  Whatever  he  has 
is  from  God,  and  to  him  he  is  in  all  refpeHs  fubjec^,  on  him  he 
every  way  depends.  The  power  your  father  has  over  you,  he 
derives  from  God,  and  it  is  God  that  binds  the  duties  you  are 
to  pay  your  father  on  you  ;  and  therefore  God  is  to  be  owned 
as  fupremz,  even  in  every  a6l  of  duty  that  you  perform  to  your 
father,  your  king,  your  neighbour,  or  yourfelf  :  for  you 
are  in  all  refpects  his.  While  you  are  fubordinate  on  various 
accounts  to  others,  yet  flill  God  is  in  every  regard  fupreme 
and  fovireign  Lord  and  difpoftr  of  you  and  your  a«5\ions,  and 
therefore  you  owe  him  a  regard,  in  every  thing  you  think, 
fpeak  or  do.     I   tliink  this  plain  enough. 

I  hope  this  account  of  the  nature  of  religion  in  general,  will 
not  be  found  liable  to  any  confiderable  exceptions^  it  being  no 
other  than  fuch  as  the  firll  view  of  the  nature  of  the  thing  offers 
to  any  that  fcrioally  confiders  it.  And  from  this  account  it  is 
evident,  that  religion  is  founded  on  the  knowledge  of  a  Deity,  A 
Hind  devotion  that  is  begot  and  maintained,  either  by  profound 
ignorance  of  God,  or  confufed  notions  of  him,  anfwers  neither 
man's  nature,  which  is  rational,  and  requires  that  he  proceed 
in  all  his  avSiions,  efpeciaiiy  thofe  of  moR  moment,  rationally, 
that  is,  with  knowledge  and  vvillingnefs  ;  nor  will  it  obtain  ac- 
ceptance, as  that  which  anfwers  his  duty,  wherebyhe  is  obliged 
to  ferve  God  with  the  be[I  and  in  the  higheft  wav  that  his  faculties 
admit  him.  The  contrary  fuppoution  of  Papifts  is  a  fcandalous 
reproach  to  the  nature^  both  of  God  and  man  ;  and  an  engine 
fuited  only  unto  the  felnili  defign  of  the  villainous  priefts,  who, 
that  they  may  have  the  conduct  of  men's  fouls,  and  fo  the  ma- 
nagement of  their  eftates,  have  endeavoured  \o  hood-wink  man, 
and  make  him  brutiOi,  where  he  fhould  be  motl  rational  ;  and 
that  they  may  have  the  hefty  they  make  him  prefent  God  with 
the  blind  and  the  laraey  v/hich  \i.\s  foul  abhors* 

This  being,  in  general,  clear,  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is 
tfiefoundaticrt  of  all  acctptahle  religion,  it  is  now  proper  to  in- 
■   ■  ■  ■  quire 


AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE        chap,  iv, 


ire  zvhat  difcoveries  of  God  are  requifite  to  bring  man  to  fuch 
eligion,  as  has  been  above  defcribed,  and  to  keep  him  up  in 
■  practice  of  it.  Now  if  we  look  ferioafly  into  this  matter,  I 
nkwe  may  lay  down  the  following  pofition,  as  clear  beyond 
ional  contradiction. 

[.  That  a  particular  knozoledge  of  God  is  requifite  to  this  pur- 
e,  to  beget  and  maintain  this  reverence  for  the  Deity,  which  is. 

undoubted  due.  It  is  not  enough  that  we  have  fome  general 
;3ons,  however  extenfive.  To  conceive  of  God  in  the  general, 
t  he  is  the  heft  and  greateft  of  beings,  optimus  viaximus,  is 
t  enough.  The  reafon  is  obvious:  we  muft  have  in  every 
t  of  actions,  nay,  in  each  particular  action,  that  knowledge 
ich  may  influence  and  guide  us  to  that  refpe6l,  which  is 
:i  to  him,  in  that  fort  of  adtions,  or  that  particular  one;  but 
s  general  notion  having  no  more  refpecf  to  one  than  another, 
11  not  do.  It  direiSls  us  no  more  in  one  than  another,  unlefs 
;  particulars  that  are  comprehended  under  that  general  be  ex- 
lined  to,  and  undt*rftood  by  the  a61or. 

2.  That  knowledge,  which  will  anfwer  the  end,  mufl  he  large 
d  comprehenfive.  This  religion  is  not  to  be  confined  to  one 
rtlcular  fort  of  a6lions,  but  to  run  through  all,  and  therefore 
;re  muft  be  a  knowledge,  not  merely  of  one  or  two  per- 
tions  of  the  divine  nature,  but  of  all  :  not  fimply,  as  if  God 
re  to  be  comprehended,  but  of  all  thofe  perfections  and  pre- 
2;at]ves  of  God,  which  require  our  regard  in  our  particular 
tions,  in  fo  far  as  they  are  the  ground  of  our  veneration, 
s  for  inftance,  to  engage  me  to  irufl  God,  I  muft  know  his 
wfir,  his  care  and  knozoledge  ;  to  engage  me  to  pray  to  him, 
mufl  be  perfuaded  of  his  knozoledge.,  of  his  willingnejs  and 
wer  to  affift  me  in  the  fuit  I  put  up  ;  to  engage  me  to  Icve 
m,  I  mull  know  the  amiahlenefs  of  his  perfections;  to  engaae 
1  to  pay  him  obedience,  I  muft    know  his  authority,  the  laws 

has  flampcd  it  on,  and  that  he  has  fixed  a  law  to  thefe  par- 
:ular  aClioiis,  either  more  general  or  mote  fpeciaL  Whence 
bein^'^  ^^vident,  that  different  actions   require  different  views 

Gcd  in  order  to  their  regulation  ;  and  all  a  mean's  aCtions 
ing  under  rule,  there  mufl  be  a  large  and  comprehenftvc 
lowlcdge  of  God  to  guide  him  in  his  whole  courfe. 
3.  It  being  no  lefs  than  an  univerfal  religion  that  is  to  be 
light  after,  the  difcoverits  of  God  wherein  it  muft  be  founded, 
ufi  Ijc  plain  to  the  capacities    of  aJl  mankind ;  and   that  both 

to  the  truth  of  thefe  difcoveries  and  their  ufe.     It   is  certain 

that 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        93 

that  all  men  are  no  more  of  the  fame  meafure  of  underHanding 
than  they  are  in  ftatuie.  However  important  the  difcovery  is, 
if  it  is  above  my  reach,  it  is  all  one  to  me  as  if  it  vi  ere  not  dif- 
covered  at  all.  To  tell  me  of  fuch  a  thing,  but  it  is  In  the 
clouds,  is  to  amufe  and  not  to  inflruft  me.  There  may  in- 
deed, fuppofing  an  nniverfal  religion,  be  fomewhat  of  differ- 
ence  as  to  knowledge  allowed,  as  to  fome  of  the  concernments 
of  this  religion,  to  perfons  of  more  capacity  and  induftry,  and 
who  have  more  time  ;  but  if  is  calculated  for  the  good  of  all 
mankind,  the  difcoveries  muft  be  fuch,  as  all  i\  ho  are  con- 
cerned may  reach,  as  to  all  its  efTentials  ;  for  the  meaneft  nave 
as  much  concernment  in  them  as  the  greatcft. 

4«  It  is  mofl:  evident,  that  thtfc  difcoveries  muft  be  certain^ 
or  come  recommended  by  fuch  evidence  as  may  be  convincing 
and  fatisfying  to  every  mind.  Conjectural  difcoveries,  or  fur- 
mifes  of  thefe  things,  built  upon  airy  and  fubtile  fpeculations, 
are  not  firm  enough  to  eftablifh  fuch  a  perfuaficn  of  truth  in 
the  foul,  as  may  be  able  to  influence  this  univerfal  regard,  over 
the  belly  of  the  (Irongeft  inward  bias  and  outward  rubs. 

5.  The  evidence  of  thefe  things  mujl  he  abiding  ;  fuch  as  may 
be  able  to  keep  up  the  foul  in  a  conftant  adherence  to  duty. 
It  is  not  one  day  tliat  man  is  to  obey,  but  always  ;  and  there- 
fore thefe  difcoveries  muft  lie  fo  open  to  the  mind  at  all  tin^ies, 
as  that  the  foul  may  by  them  be  confiantly  kept  up  in  its  ad- 
herence to  duty.  If  from  any  external  or  internal  caufe,  tliere 
may  arife  fuch  obflru6\ions  as  a  ay  for  one  day  keep  man  from 
thofe  difcoveries,  or  the  advantage  of  them  ;  he  may  ruin,  nay, 
mud  ruin  him.felf  by  failing  in  his  duty  ;  or  at  leaO,  if  he  is 
not  ruined,  he  is  laid  open  to  it. 

6.  Upon  the  whole  it  appears,  \h2^\\o^o\ix\^  natural  rehgion^  \ 
or  to  introduce  and  maintain  among  men  that  regard  v/hich  is  | 
due  to  the  Deity,  there  is  requifite  fuch  a  large^  comprehenfivcj  . 
certain^  plain^  and    abiding   difcovery^    as   may   have  fvfficiait  y 

force  to  influence  to  a  compliance  with  his  du-y  in  all,injianc€S.    i 

Thus  far  matters  feem  to  be  carried  on  with  fufficient  evi- 
dence. We  are  now  come  to  that  which  feems  to  be  the  prin" 
cipal  hinge,  whereon  the  whole  controverfy,  about  \\\^  juffi- 
ciency  of  natural  religion,  turns;  in  fo  far  at  leaO,  as  it  is  to 
be  determined  by  this  argument.  Now  this  is,  Whether  na- 
ture's light  can  indeed  afford  fuch  difcoveries  of  God,  as  are 
evinced  to  be  neceffary  for  the  fupport  of  religion?  If  it  can- 
not, then  it  is  found  irfufficient ;  if  it  can,  then  natural  rell- 

gipii 


54  AN   INQ^UIRY  INTO    THE        chap.  iv. 

gjoii  Is  thus  hr  acqultled  from  the  charge  laid  againft  it.  Now 
to  attempt  the  decifion  of  this  queiiion  iaccefsfully,  it  is  necef- 
fury  that  we  ftate  it  right.  It  is  not  then  the  quefiion,  vVhe- 
ther  2«  ?2aturc  there  is  fujicicni  obje^live  light  ?  as  the  ichools 
barbaroullv  fpeak  ;  that  is,  Whether  in  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence,  which  lie  open  to  our  view,  or  are  the  obje6l 
of  our  contemplauon,  there  are  fuch  prints  of  God,  which,  if 
ihey  were  ail  fully  underftood  by  us,  are  fufticieat  to  this  pur- 
pofe  ?  For  ihs  queftion  is  not  concerning  tlic  woiks  of  God 
without  us,  but  concerning  us.  The  pluin  queftion  is  this, 
*-  Whether  man  can,  from  thofe  Vv'Oiks  of  God  alone,  without 
the  help  of  revelation,  obtain  fuch  a  knowledge  of  God,  as  is 
iuffxient  to  the  purpofe  mentioned^" 

Now  the  quefiion  being  concerning  our  power,  or  rather  the 
exfeut  of  ou,r  pozccr,  1  know  but  four  ways  that  can  be  thought 
upon  to  come  to  a  point  about  it :  Either, 

1,  By  divine  revelation  we  may  be  informed  what  natures 
light  unaffifted  can  do.  We  would  willingly  put  the  matter  on 
this  illbe  :   Our  adverfarics  will  not  ;  fo  we  fnall  leave  it.    Or, 

2.  So'.ne  apprehen4  that  the  way  to  decide  this,  is,  to  take 
our  meafures  from  the  nature  of  God;  and  to  inquire,  When 
God  was  to  make  or  did  frame  man,  with  what  powers  it  was 
proper  for  him  to  endue  him  ?  or,  with  what  exftnt  oj  power, 
conndering  the  infinite  wifdom,  goodnefs  and  power  of  the 
Creator?  This  way  the  djiOs  would  go.  But,  i.  It  feems  a 
little  prefumptuous  for  us  to  prefcribe,  or  meafure  what  was  fit 
for  God  to  do,  by  what  appears  to  us  fit  to  have  been  done. 
For  when  we  have  foared  as  high  as  we  can,  we  mufl  fall  down 
again  ;  for  God's  counfels  are  too  deep  for  us,  and  if  we  ibould 
think  this  or  that  fit  for  God,  yet  he  having  a  more  full  view 
of  things,  may  think  quite  the  contrary  ;  and  thus  all  that  we 
can  co:ne  to  here  in  this  way,  is  but  a  weak  and  prefumptuous 
conjcraure.  2.  If  in  fact,  what  we  think  fit,  or  conjecture 
fit  for  God  to  have  done,  it  be  evident  that  God  has  not 
done  ;  that  he  has  given  no  fuch  power  or  ex/.ent  of  it,  as  we 
judge  ncceflary,  our  judgment  is  not  only  weakly  founded, 
but  plainly  falfe;  yea,  and  impious  to  boot  :  For  if  God  has 
done  otherwife,  it  is  certain  that  the  way  which  we  prefcribed 
was  not  bed  ;  nor  can  we  hold  by  our  own  apprehenfion,  what- 
ever piezus  it  is  built  on,  without  an  implicit  charge  of  folly  a- 
gainft  God.  q.  Whatever  we  may  pretend  the  wifdom  of  God 
requires   to   be  done  for,  cr  given  to  man,  if  by  ao  divine  a^i 

there 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        95 

there  is  any  evidence  that  he  has  (o  done,  though  there  be 
ro  proof  of  his  having  done  the  contrary,  yet  it  weakens  the 
evidence  of  ai(  we  can  fay,  if  the  thing  is  fuch  in  its  nature,  as 
would  be  known  by  experience,  if  exiftent ;  becaufe,  in  that 
cafe,  the  whole  ftrefs  of  cur  argument  leans  upon  a  fuppofuicn 
that  we  are  capable  of  judging  of  the  wifdcm  of  God,  while  it 
is  certain,  we  have  not  ail  thofe  circumftanccs  under  our  view, 
which  may  make  it  really  fit  to  ^Ol  this  May  rather  than  that, 
or  that  way  rather  than  this,  which  on  the  other  hand  he  cer- 
tainly hss.     This  way  then  we  cannot  decide  the  cafe. 

3.  We  may  immediately  perhaps  judge  of  the  extent  of 
mans  ability  m  this  fort,  by  a  dirzd  inquiry  into  the  nature  of 
the  powers*'  But  this  way  is  as  uncertain  as  the  former;  for 
there  is  no  agi cement  amcngfl  the  mofi  judicious  about  the  na- 
ture of  thofe  powers,  without  endlefs  controvcrfies.  And  all 
that  are  really  judicious  own  fuch  darknefs  in  this  matter,  that 
will  not  allow  them  to  pretend  them,felves  capable  to  decide  the 
queliion  this  way.  It  is  little  we  know  of  the  nature,  or  poic- 
ers,  or  aStings  of  fpirits  :  Nor  do  I  believe  that  ever  any  per- 
fon  that  underftands,  will  pretend  to  decide,  the  controverfy 
this  way.     Wherefore, 

4.  We  mud,  upon  the  whole,  give  over  the  bufmefs,  or  in- 
quire into  the  extent  of  our  ability  by  experience  ;  and  judge 
what  man  can  do  by  what  he  has  done.  If  not  one  has  made 
fufficient  difcoveries  of  God,  it  is  rafn  to  fay  that  any  one  can 
by  the  mere  light  of  nature  make  them  :  More  cfpecially  it  will 
appear  fo,  if  we  confider,  that  all  mankind  muft  be  pretended 
equally  capable  of  ihefe  difcoveries,  which  concern  their  own 
practice.  It  is  (Irange  to  pretend  that  all  are  capable  of  doing 
that  which  none  has  done.  Further,  thefe  difcoveries  are  not  of 
that  fort  that  may  be  fufficient  to  anfwer  their  end,  if  one  in 
one  age  iliall  m.ake  fom»e  fieps  towards  them,  and  another  after- 
wards improve  them  :  But  it  is  neceOary  that  every  one,  in 
every  age,  and  at  every  period  of  his  life,  have  exad"!  ac- 
quaintance with  tliem,  in  fb  far  as  is  needful  to  rcgulnte  his 
practice  in  that  period  of  his  life.  W'hen  I  am  in  one  flation, 
I  muft  either  fail  in  the  refpect  due  to  Gcd,  and  fo  lay  myfelf 
open  to  juftice,  or  I  mufi  know  as  much  of  Gcd,  as  is  requi- 
{ne  to  influence  a  due  regard  in  that  Haticn,  or  that  part  cf  m.y 
life  that  now  runs  ;  and  therefore  an  univcrfal  dt^t^  as  to  thofe 
difcoveries  muft  inevitably  overthrow  the  pretendtd  ability  cf 
maa  to  make  ihefe  difcoveries,   and  confequently  i\\t  fufficiency 

of 


96  »     AN   INQUIRY  INTO   THE        chap,  iv 

of  natures  light  \o  beget  or  maintain  religion,  which  cannot  be 
fupported  without  them. 

Now  for  clearing  this  matter,  It  is  to  be  confiderfd,  that 
what  wc  are  upon  is  a  negative,  and  it  belongs  to  thofe  who 
aflirm  man  abU  to  make  fuck  difcoveries  of  God,  to  (how  by  whom 
and  where  thefe  difcoveries  have  been  made,  or  to  produae 
thofe  notices  oi  God  that  are  built  on  the  inere  light  oj  nature f 
that  zxt  fujicient  to  this  purpofe.  Now  none  of  them  dare  pre- 
tend this  has  been  done,  or,  at  leafl,  ftiew  who  has  done  it,  or 
make  the  attempt  themfelves;  and  therefore  we  might  take  it  as 
confeiTed,  that  it  is  not  to  be  done. 

But  if  it  is  ftill  pretended,  that  this  has  been  done,  though 
without  telling  us  by  whom,  or  pointing  to  thefe  difcoveries 
where  we  may  find  them  ; 

1  anfwer,  How  Ihall  we  know  this  ?  May  we  know  it  by  the 
efFe6ts  of  it,  in  the  lives  of  thofe,  who  either  have  had  no  other 
light  i'ave  that  of  nature,  as  it  was  with  the  philofophers  of  old  be- 
fore Chrift, or  who  own  none  other  fave  that  of  nature,  as  the  deifis 
and  others  who  rejected  Chrlflianity  ?  Truly  if  we  judge  by  this 
rule,  we  are  fure  the  negative  will  be  much  confirmed?  For  it  is 
plain  that  thofe  notions  of  a  God,  which  were  entertained  by  the 
philofophers  of  old,  influenced  none  of  them  to  glori/y  ki?n  as 
God.  The  vulgar  Fleathens  were  void  of  any  rcfpec\  to  the  true 
God;  nay,  by  the  whole  of  their  pra6lice  bewrayed  the  pro- 
foundeft  ignorance,  and  moft  contemptuous  difregard  of  him. 
The  philofophers,  not  one  of  them  excepted,  whatever  notions 
they  had  of  a  Deity,  and  whatever  length  fome  of  them  went 
in  morality,  upon  other  inducenents,  yet  Ihewed  nothing  like  to 
xh^xX  peculiar,  high  and  extenfive  reJpeSl  to  the  one  true  God  which 
we  now  inquire  after.  We  may  bid  a  defiance  to  the  delfts,  to 
fliew  us  any  thing  like  It  in  the  practice  even  of  a  Socrates,  a 
Plato,  a  Seneca,  or  any  others  of  them.  Their  virtue  was 
plainly  built  upon  another  bottom.  It  has  been  judicioufly  ob- 
i'erved  by  one  of  late,  that  there  was  little  notice  taken  of  God 
in  their  ethicks;  and  I  may  add,  as  little  regard  in  their  praciice. 
Nor  are  the  lives  of  our  deifts,  or  others  fince,  any  better 
proof  of  {\-\Q  fufpciency  of  the  natural  notices  of  God,  to  beget 
and  lupport  a  due  veneration  for  him. 

If  the  deifis  declmc  this  trial  of  the  fujficiency  of  thofe  dij- 
coveries  of  a  God,  by  their  influence  upon  praElice,  then  we 
muft  look  at  them  in  themfelves.  And  here  wc  mufi  have  re- 
courfe,  either  to  thofe  who  had  no  acquaintance  with  ihc  fcrip^ 

ture 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        97 

ttlre  revelation  ;  or  to  thofe  who  have  given  us  accounts  of  God 
aoiongft  ourlelves  ;  who  though  they  own  not  the  Jcriptures  to  be 
from  God,  y-t  have  had  accefs  to  them,  for  the  improvement  of 
their  own  notions  about  God.  The  laft  fort  might  be  cafl,  as 
incompetent  witnelTes  in  this  cafe,  upon  very  relevant  giounds. 
But  we  fhall  give  our  enemies  all  that  they  can  de(ire,  even  as 
to  the  advantage  they  may  have  this  way,  that  they  may  fee  our 
caufe  is  not  wanting  In  evidence  and  certa-niy* 

We  begin  then  with  thofe  who  have  been  left  to  the  m^re 
light  of  nature,  to  fpeji  out  the  letters  of  God's  name,  from  the 
works  of  creation  and  providence,  without  any  acquaintance 
with  the  more  plain  fcripture  account  of  God.  Now  what  we 
have  to  fay  as  to  them,  we  iliall  comprize  in  a  few  obfervations* 

1.  As  for  the  attainments  of  the  vulgar  Heathens ,  there  is  no 
place  for  judging  of  them  otherwife  than  by  their  pra8ice. 
They  have  configned  nothing  to  writing,  and  fo  we  have  no 
other  way  to  guefs  at  their  opinions  in  matters  of  rdigion^  but 
either  by  their  praBice,  or  by  afcribing  to  them  the  principles  of 
thofe,  who  in  their  refped^ivc  countries,  had  the  difpofal  of 
thefe  matters.  Whichfoever  way  we  confider  the  matter,  it  mud 
be  owned  that  the  vulgar  Heathens  were  iVjpidlv  ignotant  as  to 
the  truths  of  religion.  If  we  make  their  praBice  the  meafure 
of  judging,  which  in  this  cafe  is  necelTary,  none  can  hefitate 
about  it.  If  we  make  the  principles  and  knowledge  of  their 
leaders  the  ftandard,  whereby  we  are  to  judge  of  their  attain- 
ments, and  make  a  fuitable  abatement,  becaufe  fcholars  mud 
always  be  fuppofed  to  know  lefs  than  their  mafters,  I  am  fure 
the  matter  will  net  be  much  mended,  as  the  enfuing  remarks 
will  in  part  clea?'. 

2.  As  to  the  philofopher5,  if  I  had  time  and  opportunity  to 
prefent  in  a  body  or  fyjlcnidW  that  has  been  faid,  not  by  one  of 
them,  but  by  ail  the  beft  of  them  put  together,  it  would  put  any 
one  that  reads,  to  wonder,  that  they,  **  who  weie  fuch  giants," 
as  an  excellent  perfon  fpeaks,  "  in  all  other  kinds  of  literature^ 
**  Ihould  prove  fuch  dwarfs  in  divinity,  that  they  mipht  go  to 
*^  fchool  to  get  a  lelTon  from  the  mod  ignorant  of  Chriflians  that 
*^  know  any  thing  at  all  *."  Any  one  that  will  but  ^ive  himfelf 
the  trouble  to  perufe  their  opinions  about  God,  as  they  lie  fcat- 
tered  in  their  writings,  or  even  where  they  are  propofed  to 
more  advantage  by  thofe,  who  have  colle6^ed  and  put  them  to- 
gether, 

*  See  Char.  Wolfeky's  Rcafonablenefs  of  Scripture  Belief* 

M 


9^  AN   INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE        chap,  iv- 

gether,  will  Toon  be  convinced  of  how  low  a  ftature  their  divi- 
nity was,  and  how  juftly  the  apoOle  Paul  faid,  that  by  their 
wifdom  they  knew  not  God'  All  their  knowledge  of  God  was 
no  more  than  plain  and  grofs  ignorance,  of  which  the  heft  of 
them  were  not  ignorant,  and  therefore  Thales,  Solon,  Socrutes, 
and  many  others,  fpcke  either  nothing  of  God  at  all,  or  that 
which  was  next  to  nothing.  And  it  had  been  well  for  others,  if 
they  had  done  fo  too  ;  what  they  fpoke,  not  only  failing  Ihort 
of  a  fufficient  account,  but  prefenting  moft  abominable  and  mif- 
ihapcn  notions  about  God  ;  of  uhich  we  have  a  large  account  in 
Cicero  de  Natura  Deoriim  *. 

3.  Befides  that  endlefs  variety  amongft  different  perfcns,  in 
their  opinions  about  a  Deity,  which  is  no  mean  evidence  of 
their  darknefs,  even  the  very  fame  perfons,  who  feem  to  give 
the  bell  accounts,  are  wavering  and  uncertain,  fay  and  unfay, 
feem  pofitive  in  one  place,  and  immediately  in  the  very  next 
fcntence  feem  to  be  uncertain  and  fluctuating.  Thus  it  is  with 
them  all,  and  thus  it  ufually  is  with  perfons  who  are  but  gro- 
ping in  the  dark,  and  know  not  well  how  to  extricate  ihem- 
felves. 

4.  They  who  go  furthefl,  have  never  adventured  to  give  any 
methodical  account.  They  wanted  materials  for  this  ;  and 
therefore  give  but  dark  hints  here  and  there.  Cicero^  who 
would  make  one  expe6l  fuch  an  account,  Vv'hile  he  infcribes  his 
book  De  Natura  Deorum,  yet  eOablifhes  fcarce  any  thing  ;  but 
fpends  his  time  in  refuting  the  opinion  of  others,  without  daring 
to  advance  his  own  f. 

5.  They  who  have  gone  furthcO,  are  too  narrow  in  their  ac- 
counts, they  are  manifeftly  defcdive  in  the  moft  material  things* 

They 

*  Cicero,  Lib.  i.  P.  4.  ^//  'vero  Deos  ejje  dixfrunty  tanta  funt  m 
'varietate  ac  dijfentione  conjlituti^  ut  eornm  molejlum  Jit  atinumerare  fenten" 
tias.  Nam  de  fj^uris  Deorum  Cff  de  locis  atque  fcdihus  l^  adiom  'vitce^ 
multa  dicuntur,  &c. — "  But  thofe  who  have  affirmed  that  there  are 
"  Gods,  have  gone  into  fo  great  a  variety  and  difference  of  opinion,  that 
««  it  is  diiTicuh  to  enumerate  their  fentimenrs,  for  many  things  are  faid 
«  by  them  concerning  the  ihapes  of  ike  Gods,  their  places,  habitations, 
**  and  manner  of  life." 

f  De  Natura  Deorum,  Lib.  2.  Any  inquit,  obliius  es  quod  initio  dix£' 
rim,  facilius  me  talihus  de  rebus,  quod  non  fcntirem  quam  quod  ftntirem 
dicere  p^>JJ'f. — «  Have  you  forgot  that  I  told  you  at  the  beginning,  that 
«  I  could  more  eafily  tell  what  1  did  not  think,  than  what  I  thought, 
«  of  thef^  matters !" 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS. 


99 


They  are  all  referred  about  the  number  cf  the  Gods.  It  is 
true  (he  beft  do  own  that  there  is  one  Supreme  ;  but  then  there  is 
fcarce  any  of  them  pofuivc  that  there' are  no  more  Gods  fave 
one.  No  not  Socrates  himfelf,  who  Is  fuppofed  to  die  a  martyr 
for  this  truth,  durft  own  this  plainly.  And  while  this  is  unde- 
termined, all  religion  is  left  loofe  and  uncertain  ;  and  mankind 
cannot  know  how  to  diliribute  their  regard  to  the  feveral  dei- 
ties. Hence  another  defeat  arifes,  and  that  is  about  the  fuptr' 
eminency  of  the  divine  excellencies'  Although  the  Supreme 
Being  may  be  owned  fuperior  in  order  ;  yet  the  inferior  deities 
being  fuppofed  more  immediate  in  their  influence,  this  will 
fubftradt  from  the  Supreme  Deity  much  of  his  refpedl,  and  be- 
ftow  it  clfewhere.  Moreover,  about  God's  creating  power  their 
accounts  are  very  uncertain,  few  of  them  owning  it  plainly. 
Nor  are  any  of  them  plain  enough  about  the  fpecial  providence 
of  God,  without  which  it  is  impoflibie  to  fupport  religion  in  the 
world. 

6.  As  their  accounts  are  too  narrow,  fo  in  what  they  do  own 
they  are  too  general.  But  v^ill  this  maintain  religion?  No,  by 
no  means.  But  there  muft  be  a  particular  diicovery  of  thefe 
things.  Well,  do  they  afford  this  ?  Nay,  fo  far  are  they  from 
explaining  themfelves  to  any  purpofe  here,  that  induftrioufly 
they  keep  in  dark  generals.  The  divine  exce'lencieSf  unlefs  it 
be  a  few  negative  ones,  they  do  feldom  attempt  any  explication 
of.  H\s  providence  they  dare  not  attempt  any  particular  account 
of.  The  extent  of  it  to  a!l  particular  a6i:ions  is  denied  by  many 
of  their  fchools,  owned  diflincl:iy  by  fcWf  if  any  ;  but  particularly 
cleared  up  by  none  of  them*.  The  laws  whereby  he  rules  men 
are  no  where  declared.  When  fome  of  them  are  infifted  on  in 
tlic'ir  eihicksf  the  authority  of  God  in  them,  which  is  the  only 
fupreme  ground  of  obedience,  and  that  which  alone  can  lay  any 
foundation  for  our  acceptance  in  that  obedience  at  God's  hand, 
is  no  where  taken  notice  of.  The  holmefs  of  the  divine  nature, 
which  is  the  great  reftraint  from  fin,  is  little  noticed,  except 
where  fome  of  the  more  abominable  evils  are  fpoke  of.     The 

goodnefs 

*  DoSlrinam  de  procidentia  rerum  particularijice  gratia  a  'vete-' 

ribus  (quatenus  ex  eorum  libris  qui  extant,  coilegi  poteji)  remijfius  crcdi  oh" 
fer-jamus:  Herbert  de  VeritaLC,  pag.  271,  272. — "  Vv'e  obferve  that 
*<  the  dodrine  of  univerfai  providence  and  particular  grace  was  bat 
"  faintly  believed  by  the  ancients,  io  far  as  can  bi  colieilcd  from 
"  their  books." 


loo  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  iv. 

goodncfs  of  God  as  a  rewarder^  is  not  by  any  of  them  cleared 
up*  And  yet  upon  thefe  things  the  whole  of  religion  hangs, 
which  by  them  are  either  wholly  pafled  over,  or  mentioned  in 
generals,  or  darkened  by  explications  that  give  no  light  to  the 
generals;  at  leaf!:,  and  for  moft  part,  are  fo  far  from  explain- 
ing, that  thev  obfcure,  nay  corrupt  them,  by  blending  perni- 
cious falfhoods  withtli/C  moft  valuable  truths. 

•7.  The  difcoveries  they  offer  are  not  for  the  moft  part  pro- 
ven, but  merely  aflerted.  Their  notions  are  moft  of  them 
learned  from  tradition,  and  they  Were,  it  would  feem,  at  a  iofs 
about  arguments  to  fupport  them.  Where  the  greateft  certain- 
ty is  required,   leaft  is  found. 

8.  Where  they  do  produce  arguments,  as  they  do  fometimes, 
for  the  being  and  providence  of  God  in  general,  they  are  too 
(dark  and  nice,  both  in  matter  and  manner^  to  be  of  any  ufe  to 
the  generality  of  mankind. 

To  have  produced  particular  inftances  for  the  juftificatlop 
of  each  of  thefe  obiervations,  would  have  been  too  tedious. 
Any  one  that  would  defire  to  be  fatisfied  about  them,  may  be 
fully  furnilhed  with  inftances,  if  he  will  give  himfelf  the 
trouble  to  perufe  Cicero  de  Natura  Deoru?n,  Diogenes  Laer- 
tius's  Lives  of  the  Philofophers,  or  Stanley's  Lives  ;  but  efpe- 
cially  the  writings  of  the  feveral  philofophersthemfelves  con- 
cerning this  fubject.  Nor  v/ili  this  taflv  be  very  tedious,  if  he- 
is  but  directed  to  the  places  where  they  treat  of  God  :  For  they 
iiifift  not  long  on  tliis  fubjed^j  and  the  better  and  wifer  fort  of 
them  are  moft  fparing. 

When  I  review  thefe  obfervations,  which  occurred  by  my  rea- 
ding the  works  of  the  Heathens,  and  their  opinions  concerning 
God,  I  could  not  but  admire  the  grofs  inadvertancy,  to  give  it  no 
yi^orfe  word,  of  the  deifts,  (and  more  efpeciaily  0/  the  late  lord 
Herbert,  who  vjas  a  man  of  learning  and  application)  who  pre- 
tend that  tlie  knowledge  of  tbofe  general  attributes  of  God,  his 
greatiicfs  and  goodnefs,  vulgarly  expreffed  by  Gplivius  Maximus, 
are  fufficient :  Since  it  is  plain  from  what  has  been  faid,  i.  That 
this  general  knowledge  is  of  no  fignificancy  to  influence  fuch  a 
peculiar,  high  arid  extenfive,  pra(5^ical  regard  to  the  Deity,  as 
the  notion  of  religion  necetfariiy  imports.  Of  which  even  Blount 
was,  it  feems,  aware,  when  he  ccnfcfies  in  his  Religio  Laid, 
that  there  is  a  neccflity  that  his  articles  muft  be  well  explainedo 
?.  It  is  plnn  that  the  philofophers,  and  confcquently  the  com- 
pson  people,  did  not  underftand  well  the  meaniij^  of  thofe  arti- 

cles^ 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       loi 

cles,  or  of  thofe  general  notions  concerning:  God,  at  leaft,  in 
any  degree  anlwerable  to  the  end  we  now  have  in  view. 

I  dare  lubmll  thele  obiervations,  as  to  their  truth,  to  any  im- 
partial perfon,  who  will  be  at  pains  to  try  them,  upon  the 
grapting  of  a  twofold  reafonable  demand.  I.  That  he  wiii  con- 
sult either  the  authors  themfelvcs,  or  thofe,  who  cannot  be  fuf- 
pe(Sted  of  any  bias,  by  their  being  Chriflians,  which  1  hope  de- 
iils  will  think  jufi  ;  fuch  as  Cicero,  Diogenes  Lacrtius,  &c.  or 
thofe  who  have  made  large  colle6iions,  not  merely  of  their 
general  fentences  concerning  God  ;  but  of  their  explications.  In 
which  fort  Stanley  excels.  2.  I  require  that,  in  reading  the 
authors,  that  they  do  not  lay  hold  on  z  general  ajfertion,  and  fo 
run  a.vay,  without  confidering  the  whole  of  Mhat  the  authors 
fpeak  on  that  head.  1  he  reafons  why  I  make  thefe  demands, 
are,  firft,  fome  perfons  defigning,  for  one  end  or  other,  to  il- 
luftrate  points  in  ChriRianity  with  quotations  from  Heathen  au- 
thors, i2L\kc  up  general exprtjjions,  which  feem  congruous  v^itn, 
or  may  be  the  fame,  which  the  fcripture  ufes,  without  confidsnng 
how  far  they  differ,  when  they  both  defcend  to  a  particular  ex- 
plication of  thole  general  words.  Again,  fonje  Chriftians,  wri- 
ting the  Jves  of  philofophers,  and  colle6ting  their  opinions,  are 
milled  by  favour  to  fome  particular  perfons,  of  whom  they  have 
conceived  a  vaft  idea,  and  therefore  either  fupprefs  or  wrefl 
v/hat  may  detract  from  the  perfon  they  defign  to  magnify.  M. 
Dacier,  for  inftance,  has  written  the  life  of  Plato:  but  that  ac- 
count is  the  ilTue  of  a  peculiar  favour  for  that  philofopher's  notions 
in  general ;  and  it  is  evidently  the  aim  of  the  writer  to  recon- 
cile his  fentiments  to  the  Chriflian  religion*  A  v/ork  that  iome 
others  have  attempted  before.  To  this  purpofe  Plato's  words 
are  wrefted,  and  fuch  conftrutlions  put  on  them,  as  can  no  other 
way  be  juftified,  but  by  fuppofmg  that  no  material  points  of  the 
Chriftian  religion  could  be  hid  from  Plato,or  his  mafter  Socrates. 
And  yet  after  all,  Plato's  grofs  miOakes,  and  that  in  matters  of 
the  highefl  import  ;  yea,  and  fuch  of  them,  as  are  fuppofed, 
generally,  to  lie  within  the  reach  of  nature's  light,  are  fo  ob- 
vious and  difcernible,  that  the  evidence  of  the  thing  extorts  an 
acknowledgment.  To  give  but  one  inflance  ;  after  the  writer 
has  made  a  great  deal  ado  about  Plato's  knowledge  of  the  Tri- 
nity*,  a  flory  which  hath  been  oft  toJd,  but  never  yet  proven, 
jt  is  plainly  acknowledged,  that  he  fpeaks  of  the  Three  Perfons 

of 

*  M,  Dacier's  Life  of  Plato,  pag.  i|i. 


I02  AN   INQ^UIllY  INTO    THE        chap.  iv. 

of  ^he  Deity  as  of  three  Gods,  and  three  different  principles  ; 
M'hich  13,  in  phin  terms,  to  throw  down  all  that  was  built  be- 
fore, and  prove  that  Piato  knew  neither  the  Truiity,  nor  the 
one  true  G  d'  Finally,  general  fentences  occur  in  thofe  au- 
thors, which  Teem  to  import  much  more  knowledge  oF  God, 
thin  a  further  fearch  into  their  writings  will  allow  us  to  believe 
they  hid  :  For  any  one  will  quickly  fee,  that  in  thofe  general 
expreHrions,  they  fpoke  as  children  that  underilood  not  what 
they  fay,  or  at  leai^,  have  but  a  very  imperfect  notion  of  it.  And 
though  this  may  feem  a  fevere  refledlion  on  thefe  great  men  ; 
yet  I  am  fure  none  fhali  impartially  read  them,  who  will  not  own 
it  juft. 

Bjt  now,  to  return  to  our  fubje£t,  this  fufficient  difcovery  of 
God  not  being  found  amongft  thofe,  who  were  flrangers  to  the 
fcrptures  and  Chriftianity,  let  us  next  proceed  to  confider  thofe, 
who  have  had  accefs  to  the  fcriptures,  and  lived  fince  the  Chrif- 
tian  reli-:ion  obtained  in  the  world.  And  here  it  muft  be  owned, 
that  fince  that  time  philofophers  have  much  improven  natural 
theology,  and  given  a  far  better  account  of  God,  and  demonilrated 
many  of  his  attributes  from  reafon,that  were  little  known  before,, 
to  the  confuiion  of  atlieills.  From  the  excellent  performances  of 
this  kind,  which  are  many,  I  defign  not  to  detracl:.  I  am  con- 
tent that  a  due  value  be  put  on  them  :  but  ftill  1  am  for  putting 
them  only  in  their  own  place,  and  afcribing  no  more  to  them, 
than  isrejlly  their  due.  Wherefore, notwithftanding  what  has  been 
now  readily  granted,  I  tliink  I  may  confidently  otter  the  few  fol- 
lowing remarks  on  them. 

1.  We  might  ju'dly  refufe  tliem,  as  no  proper  meafure  of  the 
ability  of  una jjijltdr talon,  in  as  much  as  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
the  l^ghty  whereby  thofe  difcoveries  have  been  made,  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  fcriptures:  of  which  none  needs  any  other  proof 
than  merely  to  confider  the  vafi  improvement  of  knowledge,  as 
to  thofe  matters,  immediately  after  the  fpreading  of  Chriilianity, 
which  cannot,  with  any  tliew  of  reafon,  be  otherwife  accounted 
for, than  by  owning  that  this  light  was  derived  from  the  fcriptures^ 
SLiid  the  obfervation  and  writings  of  ChriPiians,  vvh5ch  made  even 
the  Heathens  alhamed  of  their  former  notions  of  God.  But  not  to 
infifl:  on  this. 

2.  Who  have  made  thofe  improvements  of  natural  theology? 
Not  the  Heathens  or  deifls.  It  is  little  any  of  th-m  have  done 
this  way.  The  accurate  fyflems  of  natural  theology  have  come 
from  Chriftian  philofophers,  who  do  readily  own  that  the  fcrip- 

ture 


PRINCIPLES  OF  TBE  MODERN  DEISTS. 


103 


ture  points  them,  not  only  to  the  notions  of  God  they  therein 
deliver,  but  alfo  to  many  of  the  proofs  WkewKe,  and  llat  their 
reafon,  if  not  thus  adii^ed,  would  have  failed  them  as  nuich, 
as  that  of  the  old  philofophers  did  them. 

3.  It  is  worthy  our  obfervation,  that  fuch  of  the  Chilians,  who 
favour  the  deilis  mod,  fuch  as  the  Socini^ns  and  fome  others,  do 
give  moft  lame  and  defediive  accounts  of  God*  They  who  lean 
much  to  reafon^  their  reafon  leads  them  into  thofe  miftakes  about 
the  nature  2^u&  knowledge  oi God,  which  tend  exceedingly  to  wea- 
ken the  pTCL&icalinfluenceoi  the  notion  of  a  God.  And  we  have 
reafon  to  believe  that  the  deifts  will  be  found  to  join  with  them, 
in  their  grofs  notions  of  God,  as  ignorant  of  ihc  free  aGions  of 
men,  before  they  arc  done,  and  as  not  fo  particularly  ccncerned 
about  them  in  his  providence,  with  many  fuch-like  notions,  which 
iap  the  foundations  of  all  prad^ical  regard  to  God. 

4.  But  let  the  befl  of  tJiefe  fyfltms  be  condefcended  on,  they 
cannot  be  allowed  to  conX2i\n  Jufficient  difcoveiiei  of  God.  For 
it  is  evident  beyond  contradiction,  that  they  are  neither  full  e- 
nough  in  explaining  what  they  in  the  general  own,  nor  do 
they  extend  to  fome  of  thofe  things  v^'hich  are  of  mofi  ncceflfity 
and  influence  to  fupport  praBical  rdigion.  They  prove  a  pro- 
vidence,  but  cannot  pretend  to  give  any  fuch  account  of  if,  as 
can  either  encourage  or  direct  to  any  dependence  on,  truft  in, 
or  pra61icai  improvement  of  it.  And  the  like  rr^ight  be  mzdo. 
appear  of  other  perfections.  Again,  they  cannot  pretend  to 
any  tolerable  account  of  the  remiunerative  bounty,  the  pardon- 
ing mercy  and  grace  of  Gcd,  on  which  the  whole  of  leligion, 
as  things  now  fiand,  entirely  hangs.  Can  they  open  thefe 
things  fo  far  as  is  neceiT?.ry  to  hold  up  religion  in  the  world  ? 
They  who  know  what  religion  is,  and  what  they  have  done, 
or  may  do,  will  not  fay  it. 

5.  In  their  proofs  of  thefe  truths,  there  muft  be  owned  a 
want  cf  that  evidence,  which  is  requifite  to  compcfe  the  mind 
in  the  perfuafion  of  them,  and  eflablifa  it  againft  cbjections. 
Let  fcripture  light  be  laid  afide,  which  removes  objeClions  ;  and 
let  a  man  have  no  more  to  confirm  him  of  thofe  truths  fave  thefe 
arguments,  the  difficulties  daily  occurring  from  obvious  provi- 
dences will  jumble  the  obferver  fo,  that  he  uill  find  thefe 
proofs  fcarcely  fufficient  to  keep  him  firm  in  his  alfent  to  the 
trutlis ;  and  if  fo,  far  lefs  will  they  be  able  to  influence  his 
practice  fuitably  againft  temptations  to  fin.  Now  this  may  arife, 
not  fo  much  from  the  real  zvcaknefs  of  the  arguments,  which 

may 


104  AN   INQUIRY  INTO   THE        chap.  iv. 

may  be  conclufive,  as  from  this,  that  moft  of  them  are  rather 
drawn  ah  ah  far  do ,  than  from  any  clear  li^ht  about  the  nature 
of  the  object  known  ;  and  hence  there  comes  not  that  light  a- 
long,  asto  difficulties,  which  is  neceff^ry  to  remove  them.  And 
though  thefe  arguments  filence  in  difpute,  and  clofe  the  adver- 
fary's  mouth  ;  yet  they  do  not  fatisfy  the  mind.  Moreover, 
fome  of  no  mean  confideration,  have  pretended  that  many  of 
thefe  demonftrations,  even  as  to  fome  of  the  moO  confidt^rable 
attributes  of  God,  are  inconclufive  :  Particularly  they  have 
alTerted,  that  the  unity  of  God  was  not  to  be  proven  by  the  light 
of  nature f  nor  fpecial  providence.  But  not  to  carry  the  matter 
thus  far,  it  is  certain  that  the  force  of  thefe  demonfiratioiiS  mufi: 
Jie  very  fecret,  that  fuch  perfons,  who  owned  the  truths,  and 
bore  them  <TOod-will,  yet  could  not  find  it. 

Much  more  might  be  faid  on  this  head,  but  I  am  not  wil- 
ling to  invalidate  thefe  arguments,  or  even  to  (hew  all  that 
jnipcht,  perhaps,  not  only  be  faid,  but  made  app«^ar  againft 
them.  But  whatever  there  is  as  to  (his,  it  is  certain  that  the 
difcoveries  of  God  by  nature's  light  being  fmall,  are  eafily 
clouded,  by  entangling  difficulties  arifing  from  the  dark  occur- 
rences of  providence,  and  the  natural  v/eaknefs  and  unftpidnefs 
of  our  minds,  which  are  always  to  be  found  in  matters  fub- 
lime,  and  not  attended  with  ftrong  evidence.  And  attention  in 
this  cafe  will  increafe  the  darknefs,  and  force  on  fuch  an  ac- 
knowledgment as  Simonides  made  to  Fliero,  the  tyrant  of  Sy- 
racufe.  That  **  the  longer  he  thought  about  God,  the  mere 
**  difficulty  he  found  to  give  any  account  of  him." 

6.  They  muft,  whatever  be  allowed  as  to  their  validity  in 
themfelves,  be  owned  to  be  of  no  \i^c  to  the  generality,  nay, 
to  the  far  greater  part  of  mankind.  No  man  who  knows  them, 
and  knows  the  \vorld,  v  ill  pretend  that  the  one  half  of  man- 
kind is  able  to  comprehend  the  force  of  them.  And  fo  they 
are  fiill  in  the  dark  about  God  ;  which  quite  everts  the  whole 
{lory  about  the  fufficiency  of  the  natural  difcoveries  of  a  Deity. 

7.  It  is  plain,  that  there  is  no  ferving  God,  waRing  with 
or  worfbipping  of  him,  uithout  thoughts,  and  ferious  ones  too, 
oflim.  Now  his  nature  and  excellencies  are  infinite,  how  then 
fliall  we  conceive  of  them  ?  Our  darknefs  ard  weakncfs  will  not* 
allow  us  to  think  of  him  as  he  is,  and  conceive  thole  perfections  as 
they  are  in  him.  And  to  conceive  othcrwife  is  dangerous.  We 
may  mifiake  in  other  things  without  fin  ;  but  to  frame  wrong,  and 
Other  conceptions  of  God  and  his  excellecies,  than  the  truth  of 

the 


tRINCiPLES  OF  THE  MODERNIDEISTS.      105 

tlie  thing  requires,  is  dangerous  and  finful ;  for  it  frames  an  idoL 
Now  though  this  difnculty  may  be  eafy  to  lefs  attentive  minds  ; 
yet  it  will  quite  confound  pcrfons  who  are  in  earned,  and  under- 
hand what  they  are  doing,  in  their  approaches  to  Gcd.  Nor 
can  ever  the  minds  of  fuch  be  fatisfied  in  our  prefent  ftate,  other- 
wife  than  by  God's  telling  us,  how  we  are  to  conceive  of  him, 
and  authorizing  us  to  do  it  in  a  way  of  condefcenfion  to  our  pre- 
fent dark  and  infirm  ftate. 

8.  1  cannot  forbear  to  notice,  as  what  warts  not  its  own 
weight  in  this  cafe,  though  in  condefcenfion  we  did  a  little  wave 
arguments  drawn  from  the  prad.ical  infiutnu  of  truths  t  that  how- 
ever great  the  improvements,  as  to  notions  of  truths  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  Deity  may  of  late  have  been,  vet  the  effe&s  of 
thefe  notices  in  their  highell  improvement,  have  been  far  from  re- 
commending them,  ^s  fufficient  to  the  end  we  have  now  in  view. 
This  natural  theology  \\2^s  vd^xhtr  u\7i<\Q  men  more  learned  than 
more  pious.  Where  fcripture  truth  has  not  been  received  in  its 
love  ^nd  power f  men  have  feldom  been  bettered  by  their  impJove- 
ments  in  natural  theology.  But  we  fee  in  experience,  that 
they  who  can  prove  mofl  and  beft  in  thefe  matters,  evidence  lead 
regard  to  the  Deity  in  their  practice. 

1  (hall  add  one  obfervation  more,  which  at  once  enforces  the 
argument  we  are  upon,  againft  the  fufficiency  of  natural  religion  ^ 
and  cuts  off  a  pretended  retortion  of  ir,  againl)  the  Chriftian  reli- 
gion ;  and  it  is  this:  The  religion  the  deifts  plead  for,  and  are  o- 
bliged  to  maintain.  Is  a  religion  that  pleads  acceptance  on  its  own 
account,  which  has  no  provifion  againft^z/z^^  and  efcapes,  as  fhall 
be  demonftrated  hereafter  ;  a  religion  which  confequently  muO  be 
more  per  fed ,  and  fo  requires  a  more  exaB  knowledge  of  the  Deity  in 
order  to  its  fupport :  whereas.  theChridian  religion  is  one  which 
is  calculated  for  man  in  hh fallen  ftate;  and  xht  fall  is  every 
where  in  it  fuppofed,  and  a  gracious  provifion  made  againft 
defeBs  hi  knowledge,  SiVid  unallozved  praiiical  ef capes* 


N  CHAR 


io5  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  v. 


CHAP.      V. 

Proving  the  Infufpciency    of  Natural  Religion  from  its  DefeC" 
tivenefs  as  to  the   Worjliip  of  God, 

THE  araument  we  are  to  improve  againft  the  Jiifficiency  of 
natural  religionm  this  chapter,  might  have  been  coniidered  as  a 
branch  of  the  foregoing:  But,  that  we  may  be  more  diftin(!^, 
and  to  fliew  a  recr:3rd  unto  the  importance  of  the  matter,  we  ftiall 
confider  it  as  a  difiinct  arcfuTrent  by  itfelf. 

Now  therefore,  when  we  are  to  fpeakcf  the  zvorfap  oi  God, 
It  is  not  of  that  inward  veneration  that  confifts  in  a6is  of  the 
mind,  fuch  ^s  efleem,  fear,  love,  trufi,  and  the  like;  but  of  the 
outward,  Rated,  and  folemn  way  of  expreffing  this  inzuard  vene- 
rafi.on^  That  there  (hould  not  only  bean  inward  regard  to  the 
Deity  in  our  minds,  inH'encing  the  whole  of  our  outward  deport- 
ment ;  but  th  t  hefides,  there  (hould  be  fixed,  outward,  and  fo- 
lemn ways  of  rxercliing  and  expreffing  thele  inward  a6\ings, 
feems  evident  bevond  any  reafonable  exception, — 

,T.  From  the  general  agreement  of  tlie  world  in  this  point. 
All  the  worid  has  owned  fome  word'ip  necefl'arv.  Every  nation 
and  neonle  had  their  peculiar  way  of  worlliip*.  It  is  true,  moft  of 
thernvvere  ridiculous  many  of  them  plainly  wicked,  and  all  of 
them  vain;  but  this  makes  not  againO  the  thing  in  general; 
onlv  it  befpeaks  the  darknefs  of  nature's  light,  as  to  the  way  cf 
manatrintj  in  particulars,  that  which  in   general  it  directs  to. 

2.  The  deiffs  theinfelvcs  own  thi^  ni'^ch.  Heibert  in  his  trea- 
tife,  de  Religione  Gentifium,  confcfTes  it  a  fecond  branch  of  the 
generally  received  reh'gion,  for  uh'ch  he  pleads,  that  GodistO 
lezvorjiiippsd.  It  is  tru-^,  in  his  next,  while  be  tells  us  that  vir- 
tue and  pif-ty  were  ow  n^d  to  be  the  prindpal  means  of  worjhip^ 
ping  him,  he  would  feem  to  preclude  us  from  the  benefit  of  the  for- 
mer acknowlediment.  But  yet  he  dares  not  allert,  that  this 
which  h?  co-id elcend.'^  on  was  the  onI\  zvay^  and  fo  pretend  the 
worOiip  w;^  fpeak  of  unneceffary :  But  Ijeing  to  hold  forth  the  fuffi- 
ciency  of  this  natural  religmn,  he  was  loth  to  fpeak  any  more  cf 
that,  wljicii  wou'd  lead  bins  if  he  had  ct.nfidcred  it,  unto  a  difco- 
very  of  its  nakednefs.  But  others  of  the  deifts  do  own  the  necef- 
fityof  fucha  worlliip,  and  pretend  prayer  and  praife  lufficient  to 

tliis 

*  Herbert  de  Veritate,  r?-S«  271^  272. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       107 

this  purpofe,  as   he  alio  doth  in  his  other  treatifes,   particularly 
dt  Vent  ate*. 

3.  The  fame  rrafons  which  plead  for  inward  acls,  peculiarly 
directed  to  this  end,  plead  for  outward  veneration  likewife.  If 
we  have  minds  capable  of  this  inward  veneration,  lo  are  we 
capable  of  outward  expreilions  ;  and  <ire  under  the  fame  obli- 
gation to  employ  thofe  latter  forts  of  powers  to  the  honour 
of  God,  that  binds  us  ro  the  former.  Nor  is  there  more  rea- 
fon  why,  befides  that  tranfient  regard  we  ought  to  pay  him  in 
all  our  actions,  there  ihould  be  inward  a6ts  peculiarly  defigned 
to  exprefe  our  in^^ard  veneration,  than  that  there  fnouid  be  out- 
ward ftated  acts,   peculiarly  defigned  for  the  fame  purpofe. 

4.  The  nature  of fociety  pleads  loudly  for  this.  Mankind  as 
united  in  focieties,  whether  ielTer,  as  ifamilies,  or  greater,  as 
other  focieties,  depend  entirely  on  God  ;  and  therefore  owe  him 
reverence,  and  the  expreffion  of  it  in  fome  joint  and  fixed  way. 
Public  benefits  require  public  acknowledgments:  And  this 
fort  of  dependence  on,  and  fubjeCtion  to  the  Deity,  (hould  cer- 
tainly have  fuitable  returns. 

5.  It  is  incontrollably  evident,  that  many  in  the  world  do 
fl-iake  otFali  regard  to  the  Djity,  and  walk  in  an  open  denance 
to  him,  and  thofe  laws  which  he  has  eftablijlied.  Certainly  there- 
fore, it  is  the  duty  of  fuch  as  keep  firm,  openly  to  teftify 
their  dependence  on  and  regard  to  the  Deity,  which  is  not  fuffi- 
ciently  done  by  the  perform. ince  of  thofe  things,  which  are  mate- 
rially according  to  the  appointment  of  God.  For  what  regard  to 
Gjd  there  is,  induencins:  to  thofe  outward  ads,  cannot  be  rleai  ly 
diicernei  by  on -lookers,  who  kn^^v  not  but  fomewhat,  befde  any 
regard  to  the  authority  of  the  lawgiver,  may  be  at  the  bo?{oni  of 
ail.  It  is  therefore  necelTary  that  there  be  public,  (olemn  ac- 
tions, dire6ity  and  plainlv  importing  our  avouc!)ment  of  a  regard 
to  him,  in  oppofition  to  thefe  atixonts  that  are  publicly  offered 
to  him. 

6.  This  worfliip  is  necelTary  in  order  to  maintain  and  cherifh 
ih'3L\inward veneration.  It  is  weM  kaown,  however  much  v/e  are 
bound  to  it,   yet  the  fenfj  of  this  obligation,  and  that  veneration 

itielf 

*  Herbert  de  Veritate,  pag.  272.  Nos  int?rca  externum  illuTn  Dei  «.</- 
ti(m  ffrutf  aliqKa  religionis  fpecie J  ex  omni  pculo  regionc,  genie  evici^ms. — • 
*<  In  x'aQ  mean  time  we  have  proved  this  eKternal  wo  rib '.p  of  Gc.-^,  un- 
«-der  fome  appearance  of  religion,  fum  every  age,  country,  and  na- 
M  tion.'- 


io3  AN   INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  v. 

itfelf  to  which  we  are  obliged,  is  net  fo  deeply  rivetted  I'pon 
our  niiuds,  but  it  needs  to  be  cheriilied,  and  the  habits  Hrength- 
ened  by  a<?lings.  It  is  not  fo  eafy  for  men  to  do  this  by  inward 
meditation,  who  for  moft  part  are  little  accuftomed  to  this  way, 
and  can  indeed  fcarce  fix  their  minds  in  this  inward  exercife  at  all, 
cfpecially  if  they  have  no  fixed  way  ofexercifing  it,  but  are  iet't 
at  liberty  to  choofe  their  own  way.  Religion  therefore  muft  go 
out  of  the  world,  or,  there  mufi  be  fiated  and  fixed  wavs  of  exer- 
cifing  it.  This  is  eafily  jufiifiable  from  experience,  which  (hews, 
that  where  once  public  worfhip  is  difregarded,  any  other  fort 
of  refpe6l  to  the  Deity  quickly  falls  of  its  own  accord. 

7.  It  is  lucejfary  for  the  benefit  of  hu7iian  jociety*  The  foun- 
dations of  human  fociety  are  laid  upon  the  notion  of  a  God,  and 
the  facrednefs  of  oaths,  and  the  fixed  notions  of  right  and 
wrong,  which  all  fiand  and  fall  together.  Nor  is  there  any  way 
of  keeping  that  regard  to  thofe  things,  which  are  the  props  of 
human  fjciety,  without  fuch  a  worfliip  of  God,  as  that  we  plead 
for.  This  all  the  lawgivers  weie  of  old  fatisfied  about,  and  took 
meafures  accordingly. 

8.  If  religion  has  any  valuable  aidy  then  certainly  this  muft  be 
one  main  part  of  it,  to  lead  man  Xo future  Jiapphiefs  ;  which  can- 
not, with  any  (hew  of  realon,  be  alleged  to  confift  in  any  thing 
bcfides  the  enjoyment  cf  God.  And  it  is  plainly  ridiculous  to 
fuppofe,  that  mankind  can  be  kept  up  in  any  fixed  expe6^ation 
of,  or  clofe  purfuit  after  this,  if  not  animated  and  encouraged  by 
fome,  nay  frequent  experiences  of  commerce  betwixt  him  and 
the  Deity  here.  And  it  isfcolilh  lo  pretend,  that  this  is  other- 
wife  to  be  had,  in  any  degree  anfvverable  fo  this  end,  in  any  other 
way  than  in  the  way  of  defigned,  fixed,  folemn  and  (fated  worlhip. 

Now  this  much  beincj  faid  in  the  general  for  clearing  the 
ncceifity  of  fuch  a  icorfhipj  and  the  importance  of  it  in  reli- 
gion; it  remuns  that  we  pro^e  the  light  of  nature  infufficient  to 
direct  us  as  to  the  way  of  it.  And  this  we  conceive  may  be  cafi- 
ly  made  appear  from  the  enfuing  grounds. 

1.  The  mdnifcft  mifiakes  all  the  wr-vld  fell  into,  who  were 
left  in  this  matter  to  the  condu6f  of  the  mere  light  of  nature,  a- 
bundantly  evince  the  inccrppetency  of  nature's  light  for  man's 
direction,  with  repe<5\  to  the  wordiip  of  God.  Every  nation  had 
their  own  way  of  woiihip*  and  tliat  fiulied  with  blafphtmous, 
unworthy,  ridiculous,  ungrounded,  impious  and  horrid  rites  and 
ufages;  of  v.-hich  there  are  innumerable  accounts  every  where  to 
be  met  with,     Vvecannb  where  in  the  Heathen  world  find  any 

voifnip 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      109 

worfhip  that  isnot  manifeftly  unworthy  of,  and  injurious  to  the 
glorious  God.  Surely  that  light  that  fuffered  ihe  world  to  lofc 
their  way  fo  evidently,  niuft  be  fadly  defeil^tive.  Their  woriliip 
was  every  where  fuch,  even  where  wife  men  were  the  inftitutei;s 
of  it,  that  it  could  not  fatisfy  any  perfon  who  had  any  true  notion 
of  God  :  and  was  the  fcorn  of  the  v^ife  and  difcerning.  Nor 
can  it  with  any  Ihew  of  reafon  be  pleaded,  that  thefe  defects  and 
enormities  are  to  be  charged,  not  on  the  dejetiiventfs  of  nature's 
light,  but  the  negligence  of  thofe  who  did  not  ufe  it  to  that  advan- 
tage it  might  have  been  ufed ;  fince  it  has  been  above  proven, 
that  the  only  way  we  can  judge  what  nature's  light  can  do,  is 
by  confidering  what  it  has  done  fomewhereor  other.  And  thefe 
enormities  did  every  where  obtain  :  they  were  not  peculiar  to 
fome  places;  but  v^herever  men  were  left  to  the  mere  light  of 
nature,  there  they  fell  into  them. 

2.  Thefe  ways  of  worlhip,  viz.  prayer  and  praife,  which  are 
condefcended  upon  by  the  deifts,  and  feem  in  general  to  have  the 
countenance  of  reafon  ;  yet,  as  they  are  diicovered  by  nature's 
light,  can  no  way  fatisfy.  Be  it  granted  that  nature's  light 
dire61s  to  them  in  general,  and  binds  them  on  us  as  du- 
ty; yet  it  mull  be  allowed,  that  this  is  not  enough;  for  the 
difficulty  is,  how  we  fhall  in  particular  manage  them  to  the  glcry 
of  God,  and  our  own  advantage.  The  duty  is-ftated  in  the  ge- 
neral, and  when  we  begin  to  think  of  compliance  with  it,  we 
find  the  light  of  nature,  like  the  Egyptian  tafk-maiiers,  let  u§ 
our  work,  and  demand  brick,  while  yet  it  ailcvv's  us  nojlrazo. 
What  endlefs  difficulties  are  we  caft  in,  about  the  matter  of  our 
prayers  and  praifes?  What  things  Ihall  we  pray  to  God,  and 
praife  him  fori^  How  (hall  we  be  furnifhed  with  fuch  dilcoveries 
of  the  nature,  excellencies,  and  works  of  God  ;  and  what  things 
are  proper  for  us,  as  may  be  fufficient  to  guide  us  in  our  prayers 
and  praifes,  and  keep  us  up  in  a  clofe  attend  mce  en  thefe  duties 
in  the  v/hole  tra6t  of  our  lives,  without  wearying  or  fainting? 
Are  we,  becaufe  we  know  not  what  is  good  or  ill  for  us,  \o  hold 
in  mere  generals,  as  the  bed  of  the  philofophers  thought?  if  fo, 
will  the  mind  of  man,  for  fo  long  a  tract  of  time,  be  able  to  con- 
tinue in  this  general  way,  without  naufeating?  Or,  ihall  we 
defcend  to  particulars?  If  fo,  how  {hall  materials  be  furnidied  to 
us  for  fuch  particular  addrelTes,  who  know  fo  little  of  God's 
works,  or  our  own  wants?  Again,  who  fhall  teach  us  the  way 
and  manner  of  praying  and  praifing,  which  will  be  acceptable 
to  G06.  ?  Shall  every  one's  fancy  be  the  rule  ?  If  there  be  a 

fixed 


no  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  v. 

fixed  rule,  Which,  and  where  is  it?  Again,  What  fecurity 
have  we  from  the  mere  li.iht  of  njture,  as  to  the  fuccefs  and 
acceptance  of  thfie  duties?  It  will  be  to  no  advantage  to  ex- 
cept, that  God  requires  of  us  no  more  than  he  has  dirccled  us 
in  ;  for  this  is  to  beg  the  m.iin  q  jeOion.  W^ere  it  once  granted, 
thjt  nj  more  is  required  than  what  nature's  light  diretfs  to, 
there  might  be  fome  countenance  for  this  plea,  that  what  it 
gives  no  directions  in,  will  not  be  inrifted  upon  by  God  ;  but 
this  is  plainly  refufeJ,  and  fo  the  difficulties  remain.  Nor  is 
it  to  more  advantage  to  pretend,  thjt  the  ful  fiance  being:  agreed 
to,  God  will  not  infiil  upon  circumfiances  of  worOiip  :  for  the 
difficulties  objected  refpecl  not  merely  the  circumftances,  but 
the  very  fubltantiai  parts  of  thefe  duli;?s.  As  to  what  may  be 
pretended  of  the  inflaenct  of  the  hopes  of  eternal  life,  toward  the 
keeping  up  men  in  an  attendance  on  duties ;  as  to  the  particu- 
lar manner  of  the  perforinance  of  which,  and  the  grounds  of 
acceptance,  they  are  entirely  in  the  dark.  Th'.s  plea  fliall  be 
fully  CO  jfidered  afterwar  Js.  And  as  it  is  obvious,  that  no  gene- 
ral luppoial  of  benefit  can  for  any  long  trac\  of  time  keep  men 
fteadv  i'^i  the  performance  of  actions,  about  the  nature  and  ac- 
ceptance of  which  tiiey  are  in  doubt  ;  fo,  it  fhall  be  made  ap- 
pear \K\txi  is  no  ground  from  the  mere  light  of  nature  for  any 
i'>xz\\  hope  of  future  felicity,  as  can  relieve  in  this  cafe. 

3.  The  plain  coafedion  of  the  more  thoughtful,  wife  and 
difcerning  of  the  Heathen  world,  plainly  proves  this*.  The 
followers  of  the  famed  Coufurious  in  China,  though  thev  own 
that  there  is  one  fi'preme  God,  yet  profefs  themfelves  ig- 
nora  it  of  tiie  way  in  which  he  is  to  be  worOiipped,  and  fhere-^ 
fore  think  it  fafer  to  abjiain  from  worlhipping,  »han  err  in  the 
alh venation  of  improper  honour  to  hrm.  iMato  in  his  fecond 
A'cibiades,  which  he  infcribes"  Of  Prayer,"  mikes  it  hii  buii- 
nef^to  prove,  '*  That  A'e  know  not  how  to  manage  prayer  ;"  and 
therefore  concludes  it  "  fafer  to  abOain  altogether,  than  err  in 
**  the  manner."  Alc-biades  is  going  to  the  temple  to  pray,  So- 
crates m*ets  hi.m,  diifuades  him,  and  proves  his  inability  to 
minaa;e  the  dutv,  of  which  he  is  at  len-iih  convinced; 
whereapon  Socrates  concludes,  **  You  i'ee,  fays  he,  thai  it  is 
**  not  at  all  fafe  for  you  to  go  and  pray  in  the  temple-r-1  am 
**  therefore  of  the  mind,  that  it  is  much  belter  for  you  to  be 
*'  lilent. — And  it  is  neceiTiry  \'ou   fliould  wait  for  iorae    perfon 

"  to 

*  Hornbeck  de  Convcrfione  Gentilium,  Lib.  5.  Cap.  6.  pag.  47. 


<i 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      1 1 1 

*'  to  teach  you  how  you  ouglit  to  behave  yourfelves,  both  to- 
**  wards  the  gods  and  men.  To  which  AicibiadrS  faid,  And 
**  when  will  that  tW,e  come,  Socrates?  And  who  is  he  that 
**  will  inilruiSl  me?  With  what  pleafure  (hould  I  look  on  h'ni? 
**  To  which  he  replies,  He  will  do  it  who  takes  a  true  caie 
**  of  you.  But  methinks,  as  we  read  in  Homer,  that  IVlipeiva 
**  diffipated  the  mifl  that  covered  Diomedes,  and  hindered  him 
**  from  difiinguilhing  a  God  from  a  man  ;  fo  it  is  neceffary, 
**  that  he  fnould  in  the  fir(l  place  fcatter  the  darknefs  that  co- 
**  vers  your  foul,  and  afterwards  give   you   th.f fe  remedies  that 

that  are  neceffary  to  put  you  in  a  condition  of  diic-.rning 
**  good  and  evil  ;  for  at  prefent  you  know  net  hi  w  to  rr^ake  a 
**  difference.  Akibiades  favs,  I  think  I  mud  defer  my  f^icri- 
**  fice  to  that  time.  Sccrates  approves — You  have  reafon,  fays 
**  he  ;  it  is  more  fafe  fo  to  do,  than  run  fo  great  a  rslk  *.  The 
**  famed  Epicietus  was  fo  much  of  the  fame  mind,  that  he  knew 
**  no  way  but  to  advife  every  one  to  follow  the  cudom  of  their 
**  country  in  worfhip  f ."  Upon  the  fame  account  Seneca  re- 
jects all  this  worihip.  And  memorable  is  the  confeffion  of  Jam- 
blichus,  a  Platonic  philoJbpher,  "wlio  lived  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury— '*  It  is  not  eafy  to  know  what  God  will  be  pleafed  with, 
**  unlefs  we  be  either  immediately  infiru6ied  by  God  ourfelves, 
**  or  taught  by  fome  perion  whom  God  hath  converfed  with,  or 
**  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  it  by  feme  divine  means  or  other  :^." 
Thus  you  fee  how  much  thefc  gieat  men  were  bemifted  in  this 
matter,  and  may  eafily  conclude  what  the  cafe  of  the  reft  of 
mankind  was. 

4.  The  very  nature  of  the  thing  feems  to  plead  againft  the 
fiifficiency  of  reafon  in  this  point :  For  it  feems  plainly  to  be 
founded  on  the  cleared  notions  of  nature's  light,  that  the  wor- 
ihip of  God  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  will  d.ud'  plea fuje  oi  God  ; 
which,  if  he  reveal  not,  how  can  we  know  it  ?  Hence  it  was 
that  the  Heathens  never  pretended  reafon,  but  always  revelation 
for  their  worfhip.  The  governors  all  of  them  did  this.  And 
Plato  tells  us,  "  That  laws  concerning  divine  matters  muft  be 
'*  had  from,  the  Delphick  Oracles  J". 

Much 

*  We  have  the  fame  account  of  Socrates  and  Xenophen  j  of  which 
Staiilev,  pag.  '75. 

f  Epiiter.  Enchirid.  Cap.  3?. 

+  Seneca  Epif.  95.  Jambl.  de  Vita  Pytha^.  Cap.  28. 

<S  Plato  de  Legibus. 


112  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE        chap.  vi. 

Much  more  might  be  faid  on  this  head,  were  it  needful  :  but 
I  am  apprehenfive  this  is  a  point  that  the  deiils  will  not  be  fond 
to  difpute  with  us ;  not  only  becaufe  they  are  no  great  friends  to 
thisworfJiip,  but  becaufe  they  can  fay  fo  little  on  this  head, 
ivhich  has  any  fhew  of  reafon:  of  which  their  famed  leader  //er- 
^^r^  was  fufficisntly  aware,  when  he  tells  us  in  his  third  article. 
That  virtue  is  the  principal  zoorfnip  of  God ;  whereby  he  owns, 
that  there  is  indeed  another  part  of,  u  hich  he  dare  not  namC;  be- 
caufe he  knows  not  what  to  fay  about  it. 


CHAP.       VI. 

Proving  the  Infufficiency  of  Natural  Religion,  from  its  Defec 
tivcntfs  as  to  the  Difcovery  wherein  Mans  Kappinefs  lies- 

NEXT  to  ih^  glory  cf  God,  the  \nd\^pu\My  fupre?7ie  end  oi 
man,  and  of  the  whole  creation,  of  which  1  am  tiot  now  to  dif- 
courfe,  the  happinefs  of  rnan,  is,  paft  all  peradventure,  his  chief 
end*  Yea,  perhaps,  if  we  fpeak  properly,  except  as  abovefaid, 
it  13  his  only  end>  For  whatever  man  is  capable  of  defigning,  is 
comprehended  under  this,  beinf^  either  what  doth,  or  at  leaft 
is  judged  to  contain  fom.ewhat  of  happinefs  in  it,  or  what  is  fup- 
pofed  to  contribute  to  that  wherein  fatisra6\ion  is  underficod  to 
confifl.  Every  thing  a  man  aims  at,  is  either  aimed  zX  as  good  ia 
itfelf,  or  contributing  to  ^wr^^i^flf.  The  firH  is  a  part  oi  our 
happinefs  ;  the  lafl  is  not  in  proper  fpeech  fo  defigned,  but  the 
good  to  which  it  contribute?,  and  that  Hill  is  as  before  a  part  of 
our  happinefs*  If  religion  is  therefore  any  way  ufeful  or  fuffi- 
cient,  it  mull  be  fo  with  refpe6\  to  this  end.  And  fince  religion 
not  only  claims  fome  regard  from  man,  but  pleads  the  prefer- 
ence to  all  other  things,  and  demands  his  chief  concern,  and  his 
being  employed  about  it  as  the  main  hufinefsoi  his  life,  it  muft  ei- 
ther contribute  more>  toward  this  end,  than  any  thing  elfe,  nay 
be  able  to  lead  man  to  this  end,  ctherwife  it  deferves  not  that 
regard  which  it  claims,  and  is  indeed  of  little,  if  any  ufe  to  man- 
kind- If  then  v.'e  are  able  to  evince  that  natural  religion  is  not 
fufficient  to  \Q2id  m.an  to  that  happinefs,  which  all  men  feek,  and 
is  indeed  the  chief  end  of  man,  there  will  be  no  place  left  for  the 
pretence  of  its  fufficiency,  in  fo  far  as  It  is  the  fubje6l  of  this 
controverfy  betwixt  the  deifts  and  us.     And  this  we  conceive 

may 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODEHN  DEISTS.      113 

l^ay  be  niade  appear  many  ways.     But  in  this  chapter  we  fhali 
confine  ourfelves  to  one  ot  them. 

If  nature's  light  is  not  able  to  give  any  tolerable  difcovery  of 
that  wherein  man's  happinefs  lies,  and  that  it  may  by  him  be  ob- 
tained, then  furely  it  can  never  furniJh  him  with  a  religion  that 
is  able  to  conduct  him  to  it.  This  cannot  with  any  ihew  of  rea- 
fon  be  denied.  It  remains  therefore  that  I  make  appear,  that  na- 
tures  tight  is  not  abU  to  difcover  wherein  mans  happinefs  lies^  and 
its  attainahUnefs,  Now  thisl  think  is  fully  made  out  by  the  fol- 
lowing confiderations  : 

I.  They  who,  being  left  to  the  condu61  of  the  mere  light  of 
nature,  have  fought  after  that  good  wherein  man's  happinefs  13 
to  be  had,  could  not  come  to  any  agreement  or  confiOency 
among  themfelves.  This  is  a  point  of  the  hrft  importance,  as 
being  the  hinge  whereon  the  whole  of  a  man's  life  muft  turn  ; 
the  fpring  udiich  muft  fet  m.an  a  going,  and  give  life  to  all  his 
actions,  and  to  this  tliey  inuft  «ll  be  directed.  This,  if  any 
other  thing  ought  to  be  eafily  known  ;  and  if  nature's  light 
IS  a  fufficient  guide,  it  mull  give  evident  difcoveries  of.  But, 
methioks,  here  is  a  great  {\%n  of  a  want  of  this  evidence  ;  great 
men,  learned  men,  wife  phllofophers  and  induflrious  fearchers 
of  truth  have  fplit  upon  this  point,  into  an  cndlefs  variety  of 
opinions  ;  infomuch  th::t  V^rro  pretends  to  reckon  up  no  lefs 
than  288  different  opinions.  May  I  not  now  ufe  the  argument 
of  one  of  the  deirls,  in  a  cafe  v\?hich  he  falfely  fuppofes  to  be  alike, 
and  thus  in  his  own  words  argue  upon  this  point,  (only  putting 
in,  the  difcoveries  of  natures  light  about  happimfs,  or  the  evi^ 
dence  oj  thoje  dijcovirieu  in  place  of  the  evidence  of  the  reafons 
of  the  Chriflian  religion,  againfi  which  he  argues)  :  **  If  the 
**  difcoveries  of  it  were  evident,  there  could  be  no  longer  any 
*'  contention  or  ditTerence  about  the  chief  good  ;  all  mem 
**  would  embrace  the  fame  and  acquiefce  in  it :  no  prejudice 
**  would  prevail  againft  the  certainty  of  fuch  a  good*,"  **^  It  is 
**  every  man's  greateR  bufinefshere  to  labour  for  his  happinefs, 
**  and  confequently  none  would  be  backward  to  know  it.  And, 
*'  if  all  do  not  agree  in  it,  thole  marks  of  truth  in  it  are  not  vifi- 
*'  ble,  which  are  necelTarv  to  draw  an  adentf."  But  whatever 
there  Is  in  this,  it  is  a  moH  certain  argument  of  darknefs,  that 
there  is  fo  great  a  difference,  where  the  fear(2liers  are  many,  it 

18 

*  Oracles  of  Reafon,  pag.  2o5. 
^  Ibidi  pa?,  aoi. 

Q 


114  AN   INQ^UIRY  INTO   THE       eriAP.  vio 

IS  every   one's  interefl  to  find,  and  the  bufinefs  and  fearch  is 
plied  with  great  application. 

2.  The  greateft  of  the  philofophers  have  been  plainly  mifla- 
ken  in  it.  They  efpoufed  opinions  in  this  matter,  which  are 
not  capable  of  any  tolerable  defence.  Solon,  the  Athenian 
Jawgiver,  defined  them  *'  happy  who  are  competently  furnifhed 
**  with  outward  things,  a6l  honeftly,  and  live  temperately  *-" 
Socrates  held,  that  there  was  but  one  chief  good i  which  is 
knowledge,  if  we  may  believe  Diogenes  Laertius  in  his  life 
Ariftotle,  if  we  may  take  the  fame  author's  words  for  it,  places 
it  in  virtue,  health,  and  outward  conveniency,  which  no  doubt 
was  his  opinion,  fince  he  approved  Solon's  definition  of  the 
chief  good  \  \  and  herein  he  was  followed  by  his  numerous 
fchool.  Pythagorus  tells  us,  that  the  **  knowledge  of  the  per- 
**  fe<5\ions  of  the  foul  is  the  chief  good."  It  is  true,  he  feems 
at  other  times  to  fpeak  fomewhat  differently  ;  of  which  we 
may  fpeak  afterwards.  Zeno  tells  us,  that  it  lies  in  **  living 
**  according  to  nature."  Cleanthes  adds,  that  **  according  t© 
**  nature  is  according  to  virtue."  Cryfippus  tells  us,  that  It  is 
•*  to  live  according  to  expert  knowledge  of  things  which  hap- 
*'  pen  naturallyj."  It  is  needlefs  to  fperd  tin.e  in  reckoning 
up  innumerable  others,  who  all  run  the  fame  way>  placing  hap- 
pinefs  in  that  which  is  not  able  to  afford  it,  as  being  finite,  of 
fhort  continuance,  fickle  and  uncertain.  It  is  not  my  defign 
to  confute  thofe  feveral  opinions.  It  is  evident  to  any  cne^ 
that  they  are  all  confined  to  time,  and  upon  this  very  account 
fail  of  what  can  make  us  happy. 

3.  They  who  fcem  to  come  fome  nearer  the  matter,  and  talk 
fometlmes  of  conforviity  to  God  being  the  chief  good  ;  that  it  is 
cur  end  to  be  like  God,  and  the  like  ;  as  Pythagoras  and  feme 
others  J  ;  but  efpeclally  Plato,  who  goes  further  than  any  of  the 
refill  ;  yet  cannot  juiUy  be  alleged  to  have  made  the  difcovery* 
becaufe  we  have  not  any  account  of  their  opinions  clearly  deli-' 
vered  by  themfelves,  but  hints  here  and  there  gathered  up  from 
their  writings,  which  are  very  far  from  falisfying  us  as  to  theif 
n)ind.  Befides  they  are  fo  variable,  and  exprefs  themfelves  (o 
differently,  in  different  places,  that  it  is  hard  to  find  their  mind; 
nay  1  may  add,they  are,  indufiriouily  and  cf  dtfign  obfcuie.  1  his 
Alcinous  the  Platonic  philofopher,  tells  us  plainly  enough  in  his 

DoBrinc 

*  Stanley,  pag.  26.  Life  of  Solon,  Cap.  9.     +  Stanley,  pag.  540. 
J  Ibid,  pag,  463,         §  Ibid,  pag.  541,         ||  Ibidj  p.  192.  Cap.  80 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       115 

J^oElrine  oj  Plato ^  which  is  inferted  at  lenp:th  in  Stanley  s  Lives* 
He  fays,"  that  he  thought  the  difcovery  of  the  chief  good  was  not 
*^  eafy,  and  if  it  were  found  out,  it  was  not  fafe  to  be  declared." 
^nd  that  for  this  reafon,  he  did  communicate  his  thoughts  about  it 
bjit  to  very  few,  and  thofe  of  his  moil  intimate  acquaintance.  Now 
the  plain  meaning  of  all  this,  in  my  opinion  is,  that  he  could  not 
tell  wherein  man's  happinefs  confifts,  or  what  that  is  which  is 
able  to  afford  it :  or  at  moft,   that  though  one  way  or  other  in  his 
travels,  by  his  ftudies  cr  convcrfe,  he  had  got  feme  notionsabout 
It;  yet  he  did  not  fufficiently  underftand  them,  and  was  not  able 
to  fatisfy  himfelf  or  others  about  them,  and   that  therefore,  he 
either  entirely  fuppreffed,   or  would   not   plainly  fpeak  out  his 
thoughts,  leaft  the  world  (hould  fee  his  ignorance, and  that  though 
his  words  differed,  yet  in  very  deed  he  knew  no  more  of  the  mat- 
ter than  others.     For  to  fay,  that,  upon  fuppofition  that  his  dif- 
coveries  had  been  fatisfying,  as  to  truth  and   clearnefs,  and  that 
he  was  capable  to  prove  and  explain  them,  they  were   not  fit  to 
be  made  known  to  the  world,  is  to  fpeak  the  groffeft  of  nonfenfe; 
for  nothing  was  fo  ncceffary  to  be  known,  and  known  univerfal- 
ly,  zsX^t  chief  good^  which  every  one  is  obliged  to  feek  after. 
To  know  this,  and  conceal  the  difcovery,  is  the  mofl   malicious 
and  invidious  thing  that  can  be  thought   of.     And   rather   than 
charge  this  on  Plato,  1  think  it  fafer  to  charge  ignorance  on  him. 
He  fpeaks  fomewhat   liker  truth   than  others,  while  he  tells  us, 
**  That  happinefs  qonfiils  in  the  knowledge  of  the  chief  good  ; 
**  that  phllofophers,  who  arc   fuflficiently  purified,  arc  allowed, 
**  after  the  diffolution  of  their  bodies,  to  fit  down  at  the  table  of 
**  the  Gods,  and  view  the  field  of  truth  ;  that   to  be  made  like 
<*  God  is  the  chief  good  ;  that  to  follow  God  is  the  chief  good." 
Some  fuch  other  expreflions  we  find.  But  what  does  all  this  fay  ? 
Poes  it  inform  us  that  Plato  underilood  our  happinefs  to  confifl 
in  the  eternal  enjoyment  of  God  ?  Some,  who  are  loth  to  think 
that  Plato  njilTed  any  truth  of  importance  which  is  contained  in 
the  fcripture,  think  fo  :  ^ut  for  my  part,  I  fee  no  reafon  to  con-» 
ynce  me  from  all  this  that  Plato  underllood  any  thing  tolerably 
about  the  enjoyment  of  God^  either  in  time  or  after  time,  or  that 
he  was  fixed  and  determined  wherein  the  happinefs  of  man  con- 
lifts,  or  that  really  any  fuch  ftate  of  future  felicity  is  certainly 
attainable.    All  this  was  only  a  heaven  of  his  own  framing  and 
fancy,  fitted  for  philofophers;  for  the  being  of  which,  he  could 
give  no  tolerable  arguments.     And  all  this  account  fatisfies  me 
|io  more  that  Plato  underwood  wh^'rein  happinefs  confulD,  ihar^. 
^  '  the 


Ii6  AN'INOJJIRY   INTO  THE        chap.  yi. 

the  following  docs,  that  he  knew  the  way  of  reaching  it,  which 
I  fball  tranfcribc  from  the  fame  chapter  of  AUinous's'aU) Brine  of 
Plato:  **  Beatitude  is  a  good  habit  of  the  genius,  and  this  fimi- 
**  litude  to  God  we  fliall  obtain,  if  we  enjoy  convenient  nature^ 
**  in  our  manner,  education  and  ferife,  according  to  law,  and 
**  chiefly  by  reafon  and  difcipline,  and  inllitution  of  wifdom, 
**  withdrawing  ouifclves  as  much  as  is  poiTible  from  human 
**  afiairs,  and  being  converfantin  thefe  things  only  which  are 
**  underftood  by  contemplation:  the  way  to  prepare,  and  as  it 
'*  were,  to  cleanfe  the  demon  that  is  in  us,  is  to  initiate  our- 
**  felves  into  higher  dlfciplines;  which  is  done  by  mufiCj 
**  arithmetic,  aOronomy  and  geometry,  not  without  fome  ref- 
**  pect  of  the  body,  by  gymnaftic,  whereby  it  is  made  more 
**  ready  lor  the  actions  both  of  war  and  peace.'*  I  pretend  not 
to  underRand  him  here  :  But  this  I  underfland  from  him,  that 
one  of  three  is  certainj  cither  he  underfiood  not  himfelf,  or 
had  no  mind  that  others  (hould  undcrltand  ;  or  that  he  was  the 
moft  unmeet  man  in  the  world  to  iiiftrucl  mankind  about  this 
important  point,  and  to  explain  things  about  which  the  world 
was  at  a  lofs.  When  men  fpeak  at  this  rate,  we  may  put  what 
meaning  we  p^cafe  upon  their  words. 

4.  It  is  plain  that  none  of  them  have  clearly  come  to  know 
themfclves,  or  inform  others  that  happinefs  is  not  to  be  had  hen  ; 
that  it  cor./ifis  in  the  eternal  enjoyment  oj  God  after  tiuie;  and  thai 
(his  ts  attainable*  Thefe  are  things  whereabout  there  is  a  deep 
filence,  not  fo  much  as  a  word  of  them,  far  lefs  any  proof.  If 
ever  we  were  to  expc6l  fuch  a  thing  we  might  look  for  it  from 
thole  who  have  not  merely  touched  at  this  fubje«S\  by  the  bye,  and 
in  dirk  hints,  but  have  difcourfed  of  ??ioral  e?ids  on  fct  purpofe, 
fuch  as  Cicero  and  Seneca.  Cicero  frequently  te'ls  that  lie  de- 
figned  to  enrich  his  native  country  with  a  tranflation  of  all  that 
was  valuable  in  thcGreck  philofophers,  he  had  perufed  them  for 
this  end,  and  thus  acccmplKhed,  he  fets  h.imfclt  to  write  ofmO' 
ral  endSf  which  he  does  in  five  books.  Here  we  may  expe£\ 
fomevvhat  to  the  purpofe  :  Br.t  if  we  do,  wc  are  dii'appointcd. 
Thsfrjlhook  fets ofi-'Epicures's  opinion  about  happivefs  with  a 
great  dial  of  rhercric  The  y^cc???^ overthrows  it.  "The  third  rc^ 
prefents  the  St.:ic's  opinion.  And  thefowrth  confutes  it.  1l  he  fifth 
r«prefcntr, and  afferts  the  Peripatetic's  opinion,  which  had  been 
as  cafily  overthrown  as  any  of  them.  And  this  is  all  you  are 
to  expc6\  here,  without  one  word  of  God,  tlie  fjijoyment  of 
him,  or  any  thing  of  that  kind,  which  favours  of  ii  life  after  this. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       117 

Seneca  writes  again  a  book  dt  Vita  Beata  confiftirg  of  thirty-ivo 
chapters.  Here  we  may  find  loniewhat  polTibly.  And  indeed  if 
one  (hould  hear  him  (late  the  qaeflion,  as  he  does  in  his  ieccr.d 
chapter  he  would  expect  feme  great  mutters  frons  hin>.  Quara^ 
mus  quid  optime  faBum  fit,  non  quid  ufuatijjimuin :  Et  quid  nos 
in  ppjfeffione  felicitaiis  attrn(Z  conjlitnat ,  non  quid  vulgo,  verita'- 
tis  pejji'nio  interpreii,  probatum  Jit,  Fulgns  auUm  tain  chlamy- 
dates,  quam  coronam  voco* •  What  may  we  not  now  expect? 
But  after  this,  I  aflure  you,  you  are  to  icok  for  no  m.ore  words 
about  eternity,  nor  any  thing  more,  but  a  jejune  difcourfc  ia 
pretty  fentences,  about  the  Stoic's  cpinicn,  reprefenting  that  a 
man  would  be  happy,  if  his  psffions  were  exiln(5l,  and  he  wa& 
perfc6\ly  pleafed  with  the  condition  he  is  in,  be  it  what  it  wiii. 
Now  after  this,  who  can  dream  that  nature  s  light  is  fufHcient 
to  fatisfy  here  ?  Is  every  m.an  able  to  diuover  thai  which  phiio- 
phcrs,  the  greateft  of  them,  after  the  greattfl  application,  failed 
ib  fignally  about,  that  fcarcely  any  of  them  came  near  it,  and 
none  of  them  reached  it  ? 

5.  Nor  will  it  appear  flrange,  that  the  Ueaihen  philofo- 
phers  of  cid  (hould  be  io  much  at  a  lofs  zhoul  future  happinejs, 
to  any  one  who  confiders  how  difhcult,  if  not  impofhbie  ii  mult 
be  for  any,  who  rejeds  revelation,  and  betakes  himielf  to  the 
mere  li^ht  of  nature,  to  arrive  at  the  wifhed  for,  and  neceffary 
affurance  of  eternal  felicity  after  this  life,  even  at  this  prefcnt 
time,  after  all  the  great  improvements,  which  the  rational 
proofs  of  a  future  fiate  have  obtained,  fince  Chriftianity  pre- 
vailed in  the  world.  If  nature's  light,  now  under  its  higleil 
improvements,  proves  unable  to  aftord  full  aflurance,  and  fiill 
leaves  us  to  fiu6\uate  in  uncertainty  about  future  happinefs  ; 
no  wonder  that  they  fhould  be  in  the  dark,  who  were  Itrangcrs 
to  thefe  improvements. 

That  the  arguments  for  a  future  fiate,  (ince  Chrifiianity  ob- 
tained, have  received  a  vaft  improvem.ent  from  ChriTjian  divines 
and  philofophers,  cannot  mcdeflly  be  denied.  The  perform- 
ances of  Plato  and  Cicero,  on  this  point,  Vihich  were  the  beil 
among  the  ancients,  are,  when  compared  with  our  iate  Chriftian 
writers,  but  like  the  trifles  of  a  boy  at  fchcol,  or  the  rude  ef- 

fays 

*  «  Let  us  inquire  what  is  heft  to  be  done,  and  not  wlias  i*  n.  -fl 
"  common;  and  what  puts  us  in  polTeiiicn  of  eternal  felicity,  and  ikvc 
'*  what  is  approved  by  the  vulgar,— ~ihe  v^oril  jodges  of  iruth.  Ey  the 
"*  vulgar  I  mean  the  rich  and  great  nx^n>  a*  well  as  the  ir.ob." 


ii8  AN   INCLUIRY   INTO   THE        chap.  vi. 

fays  of  a  novice,  in  comparifon  to  the  moft  elaborate  anc| 
complete  peiformances  of  the  greateft  mafters  ;  if  they  bear  even 
the  lame  proportion.  He  who  knows  not  this,  knows  nothing 
in  thele  n.atters.  Yea,  to  that  degree  have  they  improven 
t'fiofe  arguments,  that  it  is  utterly  impoffible  for  any  man,  who 
gives  all  their  reafons  for  the  continuance  ef  the  foul  after 
death,  with  their  anfwers  to  the  trifling  pretences  of  the  oppo- 
fers  of  this  conciufion,  a  fair  hearing  and  due  confideration,  to 
acquiefce  rationally  in  the  contrary  afTertion  of  atheijh  and 
mortal  deifts  ;  or  not  to  favour,  at  Icafl  this  opinion,  as  what 
is  highly  probable,  if  not  abfolutely  certain. 

But  after  all,  if  v/e  are  left  to  feek  affurarfce  of  this  from  the 
unaffifled  light  of  nature,  that  certainly  God  has  provided  for, 
and  will  aiiually  bejlow  upon  man,  and  more  tjpecially  man  who 
is  now  a  /inner  f  future  and  eternal  felicity  ^  we  will  find  our- 
felves  plunged  into  inextricable  difficulties,  out  of  which  the 
light  of  nature  will  find  it  very  difficult,  if  not  impoffible  to  ex-x 
tricate  us.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  perfuaded  of  the  future  fepa- 
rate  fubfiftence  of  our  fouls  after  death,  and  another  to  know 
in  what  condition  they  ffiall  be  ;  and  yet  more  to  be  alTuredj 
that  after  death  our  fouls  fiall  he  poffeffed  oj  eternal  happinefs. 
It  is  precifeiy  about  this  iaft  point  that  we  are  now  to  fpeak.  1  he 
arguments  drawn  from  nature's  light  will  fcarce  fix  us  in  the 
ileady  perfuafion  of  future  and  eternal  felicity.  There  is  a 
great  odds  betwixt  our  knowledge  of  future  puniihw  ents,  and 
the  grounds  whereby  ue  are  led  to  it,  and  our  perfuafion  of  fu- 
ture and  eternal  rewards.  Upon  inquiry  the  like  reafons 
will  not  be  found  for  both.  Our  notices  about  eternal  rewards, 
when  the  promifes  of  it  contained  in  the  fcriptures  are  fet  afide, 
will  be  found  liable  to  many  obje6\ions,  hardly  to  be  folved  by 
the  mere  light  of  nature,  which  do  not  fo  much  afTedl  the 
proofs  advanced  for  future  puniffiments.  Befides,  fince  the  en- 
trance of  fin,  its  univerfai  prevalence  in  the  world,  and  the 
confequenccs  following  upon  it,  have  fo  long  benighted  man, 
as  to  any  knowledge  that  he  otherwife  might  have  had  about 
eternal  happinefs,  that  now  it  will  be  found  a  matter  of  the  ut- 
mofi:  difficulty,  if  not  a  plain  impoffibility,  for  him  to  reach 
afTurance  of  eternal  felicity  by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  how- 
ever improven. 

The  pleas  drawn  from  the  kolinefs  and  jn/itce  of  God,  fay 
much  for  the  certain  punilhment,  after  thirs  life,  of  many  noto- 
rious ofFenders,    who  have  wholly   efcaped   punilhment   here ; 

'     '    ■  efpccially 


PRINCIPLES  OF  TFIE  MODERN  DEISTS,       119 

cfpecially  as  they  are  ftrengthened  by  other  collateral  confider- 
ations  clearing  and  enforcing  them. 

But,  whether  the  pleas  for  future  and  eternal  rewards,  from 
*he  juflice  and  goodnefs  of  God,  on  the  one  hand  ;  and  the  lufFer- 
ings  of  perfons  really  guilty  of  fin,  but  in  comparifon  of  others 
virtuous,  on  the  other  ;  will  with  equal  firmnefs  conclude, 
that  God  is  obliged  to,  or  certainly  wiil^  reward  xhch  imperje^ 
virtue,  and  compenfate  their  fufFerings,  may,  and  perhaps  not 
without  reafon,  be  queftioned. 

That  it  is  congruous  that  virtue  fhould  be  rewarded,  may 
perhaps  eafily  be  granted.  But  what  that  reward  is,  which  it 
may  from  divine  juftice  or  bounty  claim,  it  will  not  be  eafy  for 
us  to  determine,  if  we  have  no  other  guide  than  the  mere  light 
©f  nature.  The  man  who  perfectly  performs  his  duty  is  fecured 
againft:  the  fears  of  punifhment,  and  has  reafon  to  reft  fully 
affured  of  God's  acceptance  and  approbation  of  what  is  every 
way  agreeable  to  his  will.  He  has  a  perfect  inward  calm  in 
his  own  confcience,  is  difturbed  with  no  challenges,  and  has 
the  fatisfa6lion  and  inward  complacency,  refulting  fiom  his 
having  acquitted  himfelf  according  to  his  duty  :  His  confcience 
affures  him  he  has  done  nothing  to  provoke  God  to  withdraw 
favours  already  given,  or  to  withhold  further  favours.  And 
though  he  cannot  eafily  fee  reafon  to  think  God  obliged,  either 
to  continue  what  he  freely  gave,  or  accumulate  further  eiFecls 
of  bounty  upon  him,  or  to  protra6l  his  happinefs  to  eternity  ; 
yet  he  has  the  fatisfa6tion  of  knowing,  that  he  hath  not  ren- 
dered him.felf  unworthy  of  any  favour.  This  reward  is  the 
neceffary  and  unavoidable  confequence  of  perfeSI  obedience. 

But  this  comes  not  up  to  the  point.  That  which  the  light  of 
nature  muft  affure  us  of  is.  That  virtuous  men,  on  account  of 
their  virtue,  may  claim  and  expedl,  befides  this,  a  further  re- 
ward, and  that  of  no  lefs  confequence  than  eternal  felicity. 
Now,  if  I  miflake  it  not,  when  the  promife  of  God,  which 
cannot  be  known  without  revelation,  is  laid  afide,  the  mere 
light  of  nature  will  find  it  difficult  to  fix  upon  folid  grounds, 
for  any  affurance  as  to  this.  Many  thorny  difficulties  muft  be 
got  through.  Not  a  few  perplexing  queOions  mull  be  folved. 
If  it  is  faid  that  the  juftice  of  God  neceffarily  obliges  him,  he- 
fides  that  reward  nece(r:irily  refulting  from  perfect  obedience, 
(of  which  above),  further  to  recoiT.peiiCf ,  even  the  moft  exa^l 
and  perfedl  performance  of  our  duty,  antecedetatly  to  any  pro- 
mife given  to  tliat  efFed,  with  future  and  eternal  felicity  ;  it 

may 


I20  AN   INQUIRY  INTO  THE        tnxT.  vu 

may  be  inquired,  How  It  fhail  be  made  appear  that  virtiie,  fup- 
pofe  it  to  be  as  prrfsct  as  you  will,  can  be  faid  to  r/ieritf  and  to 
merit  (o  great  a  reward  ?  May  not  God,  without  injuftice,  turn 
to  nothing  an  innocent  creature  ?  Sure  I  am,  no   mean  nor  in- 
competent juJges   have  thought   fo  *.     Where    is  the  injuftice 
of  removing  or  taking  away  what  he  freely  gave,  and  did  not 
promife  to  continue  ?  Is   it  modeft  or   fafe   fur  us,  u-Ithout  the 
mod  convincing  evidences  of  the  inconfiOency  of  the  thing,  to 
litnit   the    power  of  Go-d,  or  put  a  cannot  on  the  Almighty  ? 
And  does  not   the  very  pollibility  of  the  annihilation  of  an    in- 
nocent creature,  in  a  confillency  with  juftice,  though  God,   for 
other  rcafons,  (bould  never  think  fit  to  do  it,  entirely  enervate 
this  plea?  If  God,  without  injuftice  may   takeaway   ih^  being 
of  an  innocent  creature,  how  is  it    poOTible   to  evince,  that    in 
juflice,  he  mull  reward  it  with  eternal  kappinefs?  Again,  if  we 
iTiay,  for  our  virtue,  claim  eternal   felicity,  as  due   in  juflice, 
may  it  not  be  inquired.  What  exercifc  of  virtue, — for  how  long 
a  tim^  contiued,— is  f  iffici  ent  to  give  us  this  title  to  eternal  re- 
wards ?  If  the   bounty  and  goodne/s   of  God   is  infixed  on,  as 
the  ground  of  this  claim,  the  plea  of  juOice  feems  to  be  defert- 
ed.    And  here  again  it  may  be  inquired,  Whether  the  goodnefs 
of  God  is  necefl'ary  in  its  egrefs?  Whether  the  bounty  of  God 
ought  not  to  be  underflood   to  refpe£i  thofe  thinrs  which  are 
abfolutely  at  the  giver's  pleafure  to  i^rant  or  withhold  ?  Whe- 
ther, in  fach  matters,  we  can  be  affured   that  bounty  will  give 
us  this  or  th.U,  which,  though  we  want,   is  not   in    jufiice  due, 
nor  fecured  to  us  by  any  promiie  ?  Further,  it  may  be  inquired 
how  far  maft  goodnefs    extend  itfelf  as   to   rewards?    Is   it  not 
iuppofable,  that  it  may  iXo"^  (horl  of  eternal  felicity,  and  think 
a  lefs   reward  fjfHcient?  Of  io  great  weight  have   thefe,  and 
the  like  difficulties  appeared  to  not  a  {cw,  and  thofe  not  of  the 
more  ftupid  fort  of  mankind,  that  they  have  not  doubted   to  af- 
fert  boldly,  thit  even  innocent  man,  without  revelation,  and  a 
poll  five   promife,  could    never   be    afl\ired   of  eternal   rewards. 
And  how  the  liglit  of  nature  can  dlfcngagc  us  from  the[e  difficul- 
ties, were  man  perfe611y  innocent,  I  do  not  well  underfiand. 

But  whatever  there  is  of  this,  the  entrance,  of  fin  and  the  con- 
fidcration  of  man's   cafe  as  involved  in  guilti  has  caii  us  upon 

new 

*  See  the  Excellency  of  Theology,  Src.  by  T-  H.  R.  Boil,  pag.  25, 
26,  27,  &c.  and  Confiti.  about  the  Recon.  of  Reafon  and  Rel.  by  T* 
£.  pag.  21,  22. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  bEISTS.      12 i 

new  and  yet  greater  difficulties.  From  this  prefent  cotidition 
therein  we  find  all  mankind  without  exception  involved,  a 
whole  (hoal  of  difficulties  emerge,  never,  I  am  afraid,  to  be  re« 
moved  by  unajjijied  reafon* 

Now,  it  may  be  inquired,  what  obedience  is  it  that  can  en- 
title us  to  eternal  felicity?  If  none  fave  that  which  is  perfeB  will 
ferve,  who  lliall  be  the  jjetter  for  this  reward?  Who  can  pretend 
to  this  perfe£^  or  finlefs  obedience?  \i  imperfeS  obedience  may^ 
how  (liall  we  be  fare  of  this?  How  fhall  he  who  deferves  punllh* 
ment,  claim,  demand  and  expecl  reward,  a  great  reward,  yeaj 
the  greatell  reward, — -eternal  happinefs?  If  the  goodnefs  of  God 
is  pleaded,  and  it  is  faid,  that  though  we  cannot  expe6l  inJiriSI 
jujlice  to  have  oiir  imptrjeB  obedience  rewarded  ;  yet  we  may  hope 
it  from  the  bounty  of  God?  Befides,  what  was  above  moved 
agalnft  this,  in  a  more  plaufible  cafe^  when  we  were  fpeakingof 
innocent  man,  it  may  be  further  inquired,  whether,  though  infi- 
nite bounty  might  deal  thus  gracioufly  with  man,  if  he  were 
perfeBly  righteous,  it  may  npt  yet  withhold  its  favours,  or  at 
lea^l  {{op  (bort  of  eternal  felicity,  with  the  befl  among  finners? 
Again,  what  degree  of  imperfedion  is  it  that  will  prejudge  this 
claim?  What  may  confifl  with  it  ?  Who  is  good  in  that  fcnfe, 
which  is  neceflary  to  qualify  him  for  this  expedition?  Is  there  any 
fuch  perfon  exiftent?  What  way  (hall  we  be  fure  of  this  ?  Is  it  to 
bemeafured  by  outward  a6lions  only, or  are  inward  principles  and 
alms  to  come  in  confideration  ?  Who  can  know  thefe  fave  God  ? 
If  it  be  faid,  we  can  know  ourfelves  to  be  fuch  :  I  anfwer,  how 
Ihall  we  maintain  any  confidence  of  future*  nay  eternal  re- 
wards, while  confcience  tells  that  we  deferve  puniftirnent  ? 
What  if  by  the  mere  light  of  nature  we  can  never  be  alTured  of 
forglvenefs?  How  (hall  we  then  by  it  be  fure  of  eternal  re- 
wards? If  we  are  not  rewarded  here,  how  can  we  know  but  that 
it  has  been  for  our  fins  that  good  things  have  been  withheld  froin- 
us?  May  not  thisbe  prefumed  to  be  the  confequcnceof  our  known 
fins,  or  more  covert  evils,  which  felf-love  has  made  us  overlook? 
If  we  fuffer,  yet  do  we  fufFer  more  than  our  fins  deferve,  or  even 
fo  much  ?  If  we  think  fo,  will  we  be  fuftaincd  competent  judges 
of  the  quality  of  offences,  and  their  demerit,  which  are  done 
agalnfi;  God,  efpecially  when  we  are  the  aftors  ?  To  whom 
does  it  belong  to  judge  ?  If  ye  meet  with  fome  part,  for  ye  can 
never  prove  it  is  all,  of  demerit  or  deferved  punKbmcnt  of  your 
fins  here,  will  this  conclude  that  ye  fl:iall  be  exempted  frond 
fuffering  what  further  God  may  in  jufticc  think  due  to  them,  and 

P  you 


121  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE        chap.  vf. 

you  on  their  account  hereafter?  What  fecurlty  have  ye  that  ye 
fViall  efcape  with  what  is  intli(5>ed  on  you  here  ?  And  not  only 
fo,  but  inftead  of  meeting  with  m  hat  ye  further  deferve,  obtaiis 
rewards  which  ye  dare  fcarce'y  fav  ye  deferve  ?  If  God  fpare  at 
prefent  a  noted  offender,  who  cannot  without  violence  to  rea- 
fon  be  fuppofed  a  fubjett  meet  for  pardon  or  for  a  reward,  and 
referve  the  whole  puniO.ment  due  to  his  crincs,  to  the  other 
world  ;  but  in  the  mcari  uhile,  fees  meet  to  \ni\\&.  prefent  pu- 
i^iOnment  on  thee,  though  lefs  criminal,  perhaps  to  convince 
the  world,  (hat  e^ven  Icfler  cfterder«^  fhall  not  efcape  ,*  if,  1  fay, 
he  deal  thus,  is  there  no  way  for  clearing  his  juflice,  but  by  con- 
ferring eternal  happinefs  on  thee  ?  ^A  by,  if  he  \iiih6t  what 
further  puniflimcnt  is  due  to  thee,  in  exacl  proportion  to  thy  lefs 
atrocious  crimes;  and  punilh  the  other  with  evils  pi'oportioned 
to  his  more  atrocious  crimes,  and  make  him  up  by  the  feverity 
of  the  Oroke  for  the  delay  of  the  puniflimetit  ;  if,  I  fay,  thus  he 
do,  I  challenge  any  man  to  tell  me  where  the  Injufticc  lies? 
And  may  not  the  like  be  faid  as  to  any  other  virtuous  perfon, 
or  whom  thou  fuppofeft  to  be  fuch,  who  meets  with  itlierings  ? 

Nor  do  lefs  perplexing  difficulties  attend  ihofe  other  pleas  for 
future  happinefs  to  man,  at  leafl,  in  his  prefent  condition  ; 
which  are  drawn  from  God  creating  us  capable  of  future  hap- 
pinefs, implanting  defires,  and  giving  us  gufls  of  it:  All  which 
would  be  given  in  vain,  if  there  was  no  happinefs  defigned  for 
man  after  time. 

But  how  by  this  we  can  be  fecar^d  of  eternal  happinefs,  I 
do  not  well  fee.  Nor  do  I  underftand  how  the  difficulties  which 
may  be  moved  againft  this,  can  be  refolved.  It  may  be  in^ 
quired,  \'\'hether  this  defire  of  happinefs,  faid  to  be  implanted 
in  our  natures,  is  really  any  thiiig  dif'indt  from  that  natural 
tendency  of  the  c/ealure  to  Its  own  perfe61ion  and  prefervation, 
which  belongs  to  the  being  of  every  creature,  with  fuch  difference 
as  to  degrees  and  the  manner,  as  their  refped^Ive  natures  re- 
quire ?  If  it  is  no  more  than  this,  it  muft  be  allowed  effential 
to  every  rational  creature  :  And  if  every  rational  creature  has 
an  effential  attribute,  which  infers  an  obligation  on  God  to 
provide  for  it  eternal  happinefs,  and  put  it  in  poflefhon  of  this 
felicity,  If  no  fault  interv.  ne,  doth  it  noT  thence  neceffarily, 
follow,  that  God  cannot  poihbiy,  without  injufllce,  turn  to  no-- 
thing  any  Innocent  rational  creature  ;  nay,  nor  create  any  one, 
which  it  Is  pofhble  for  him  again  to  annihilate  without  injuf- 
tice  ?  For  if  we  Ihould   fuppofc^  it  poflible  for  God  to  do  fo, 

and 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       123 

^nd  thus  without  injuftice  frufirate  this  defire,  where  is  the  force 

gf  the  argument  ?  And  is  it  not  a  little  bold  to  limit  God  thus  ? 

J  need   not  enter   into  the  debate,  Whether  there  is  any  fup- 

pofablecafe,  wherein  infinite  wifdom  may  think  it  fit  to  do  fo  V 

That  difpute  i's  a  little   too  nice:   For  on  the  one  hand,  it  will 

be  hard  for  us  to  determine  it  pofitively,  that  infinite  wifdom 

mud,  in  any  cafe  we  can  fuppofe,  think  it  fit  to  deftroy  or  turn 

to  nothing  an  innocent  creature  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it   is 

no  lefs  ra(h  to  adert,  that  our  not  knowing  any  cafe,  proves 

ihat  really   there    is  none  fuch   known  to  the  only  wife   God. 

Befides,  if  we  allow  it  only  pcffible,  in  a  confiftency  with  juf- 

tice  and  veracity,  for  God  to  do  it,  1  am   afraid   the  argument 

has  loft  its  force.     Further,  it  may  be  inquired,  Whether  the 

rational  creature  can   in  duty  defire  an   eternal  continuation  in 

"feeing,  otherwife  than  with  the  deepefi:  fubmiffion  to  the  fovereiga 

pleafure  of  God,  where  he  has  given  no  pofitive  promife?  If  fub- 

miffion  belongs  to  it,  ^11   certainty  evanifhes,  and  we  muft  look 

clfewhere  for  aflTurance  of  eternal  happinefs.     A  defire  of  it,  if 

God  fee  meet  to  give  it,  can   never  prove  that  certainly  he  wll 

give  it.    If  it  is  faid,  that  the  creature  without  fubmiffion  or  fault 

may  in fift  upon  and   claim  eternal  happinefs;  I  do  not  fee  how 

this  can  be  proven. 

But  again,  do  not  thefe  defires  refpefi  the  whole  man,  con-* 
lining  of  foul  and  body?  Doth  not  death  diflblve  the  m.an  ? 
Are  not  thefe  defires  apparently  frufirated  ?  How  will  the  light 
of  nature  certainly  infer  from  thofe  defires,  gufis,  6cc.  that  the 
whole  man  thall  have  eternal  felicity,  while  we  fee  the  man 
daily  defiroyed  by  death?  Can  this  be  underftood  without  reve- 
lation ?  Does  the  light  of  nature  teach  us  that  there  will  be  a 
refurredion  ?  I  grant,  that  without  ihe  fuppofal  of  a  future  cx" 
iftance,  we  cannot  eafily  underlland  what  end  there  was  wor- 
thy of  God  for  making  fuch  a  noble  creature  as  man  :  But 
while  we  fee  man,  on  th?  other  hand,  daily  deftroyed  by  death, 
and  know  nothing  of  the  refurre(Stion  of  the  body,  which  is 
the  cafe  of  all  thofe  v/ho  reject  revelation,  we  ihall  not  know 
"vv'hat  to  conclude,  but  muft  be  toflfed  in  cur  own  minds,  and  be 
at  lofs  how  to  reconcile  thofe  feeming  inconfirtencies  :  Which 
gave  a  great  man  occafion  to  obferve,  **  That  there  can  be  no 
*' reconciliation  of  the  do61rine  of  future  rewards  and  punifh- 
**  ments,  to  be  righteouily  adminifiered  upon  a  fuppofition  of 
^'  the  feparate  everlafiing  fubfiitence  of  the  foul  only  *•'*     And 


f^V 


♦  Dr.  Qwen  02  Heb.  vu  ver,  i,  2.  Vol,  3,  pag.  au 


124  AN   INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE       chap.  vi. 

for  proof  of  this,  he  Infifls  on  feveral  weighty  confiderations, 
which  I  cannot  tranfcribe. 

But,  fhould  we  give  up  all  this,  Will  this  defire  of  happinef? 
prove  that  God  defjgned  it  for  man,  whether  he  carried  himfelf 
well  or  not  ?  If  it  prove  not  that  finful  man  may  be  happy,  or 
that  eternal  happinefs  is  defigned  for  man,  M'ho  is  now  a  finnerj 
what  are  we  the  better  for  it  ?  Are  we  not  all  more  or  lefs  guil- 
ty ?  What  will  it  help  us,  that  we  were  originally  def.gned 
for,  and  made  capable  of  future  felicity,  if  we  are  now  under 
an  incapacity  of  obtaining  it  ?  Do  we  not  find  that  we  have 
fallen  fliort  of  perfect  obedience?  And  can  thofe  defires  afl'ure 
us  that  God  will  pardon,  yea  reward  us,  and  that  with  the 
greateft  bieffing  which  innocent  man  was  capable  of?  Moreover, 
before  we  end  this  difcourfe,  I  hope  to  make  it  appear,  that  by 
the  -mere,  light  ofvaturf^  no  man  can  affuredly  know  ihzX  fin  fhall 
be  pardoned;  and  if  (oy  it  is  vain  to  pretend,  that  we  can  be 
allured  of  eternal  felicity  in  our  prefent  condition.  They  who 
have  finned  Icfs  and  fuffered  more  in  this  life,  fliall  not  be  fo 
fcverely  punifhed  in  that  which  is  to  come,  as  they  who  have 
finned  more  grievoufly  and  efcaped  without  puniihrnent  here, 
this  reafon  aitures  us  of:  But  it  can  fcarcely  fo  much  as  afford 
us  a  colourable  pica  for  eternal  rewards,  to  any  virtue  that  is 
ftained  with  the  leaf!  fin.  The  fcriptuies  rrake  mention  of  a 
happinefs  promifed  to  innocent  man  upon  perfect  obedience  ; 
and  of  faivation  to  guilty  man  upon  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Befide  thefe  two  I  know  no  third  foit.  As  to  the  laO,  the 
light  of  nature  is  entirely  filent,  as  we  fliall  fee  afterwards. 
Whether  it  can  alone  prove  the  firft  is  a  queflion  :  But  that 
man  in  his  prefent  condition  cannot  be  better  for  it,  is  out  of 
queflion. 

6.  Were  it  granted  that  thefe  arguments  are  ccnclnCve,  yet 
the  matter  would  be  very  little  mended  :  For  it  is  ceitain,  that 
thefe  arguments  are  too  thin  to  be  dilcerned  by  the  dim  eyes  of 
the  generality,  even  though  they  had  tutors  who  would  be  at 
pains  to  inftrudt  them.  Yea,  I  fear  that  they  rather  beget  fuf- 
picions  than  firm  perfuafions  in  the  minds  of  philofcphers.  They 
are  of  that  jort,  which  rather  fiience  than  fatisfy.  Arguments 
ab  abfurdo,  rather  force  the  niind  to  afi'ent,  than  determ.ine  it 
cheerfully  to  acquiefcc  in  the  truth  as  difcovered.  Other  de- 
monfirations  carry  along  with  them  a  difcovcry  of  the  nature 
of  the  thing,  which  fatisfies  it  in  fome  meafurc.  Hence  they 
have  a  force,  not  only  to  engage,  but  to  keep   the  foul   fiesdy 

in 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      125 

in  its  adherence  to  truth  ;  but  thefe  oblige  to  implicit  belief  as 
it  were,  and  therefore  the  mind  eafily  wavers  and  lofes  view  of 
truth  ;  and  Is  no  longer  firm,  than  it  is  forced  to  be  fo,  by  a 
prefent  view  of  the  argument.  If  learned  men  were  always  ob- 
fcrvant  of  their  own  minds,  and  as  ingenuous  as  the  Auditor  is 
in  Cicero,  in  his  acknowledgment  about  the  force  of  Plato's 
arguments  for  xht  immortality  of  the  foul*,  they  would  make 
fome  fuch  acknowledgment  as  he  does.  After  he  has  told,  that  he 
has  read  oftener  than  once  Plato's  arguments  for  the  immortali" 
ty  of  the  foul t  which  Cicero  had  recommended  in  the  foregoing 
difcourfe  as  the  beft  that  were  to  be  expected,  he  adds,  "  Sed 
**  nefcio  quomodo,  dum  lego  a/fentior:  cum  pojui  librim,  &  me<- 
**  cum  ipfe  de  immortaliiate  animorum  capi  cogitare,  afftntio  am- 
**  nis  ilia  elal?iturf,"  In  like  manner  might  others  fay,  When 
I  pore  upon  thofe  arguments  I  affent ;  but  when  I  begin  to  look 
on  the  matter,  I  find  there  arifes  not  fuch  a  light  from  them, 
as  is  able  to  keep  the  mind  fiea^y  in  its  affent.  More  efpecially 
will  it  be  found  fo,  if  we  look  not  only  to  the  matter,  but  to 
the  difficulties  which  offer  about  it.  Yet  this  fteadlnefs  is  of  ab- 
folute  neceifity  in  this  cafe,  fince  a  refpecl  to  this  mufl  be  fbp- 
pofed  always  prevalent,  in  order  to  influence  to  a  Heady  pur- 
fuit.  The  learned  Sir  Matthew  Hale  obferves,  that,  **  It  is  ve- 
**  ry  true,  that  partly  by  univerfal  tradition,  derived  probably 
**  from  the  common  parent  of  mankind,  partly  by  fome  glim- 
**  merings  of  natural  light  in  the  natural  confciences,  in  iome, 
**  at  leaflf,  of  the  Heathen,  there  {ccfcitd  to  be  fome  common 
**  perfuafion  of  a  future  ftate  of  rew^ards  and  punilhments.  But 
**  firft  it  was  weak  and  dim,  and  even  in  many  of  the  wifcft  of 
**  them  overborn  ;  fo  that  it  was  rather  a  fufplcion,  or  at  moft, 
**  a  weak  and  faint  perfuafion,  than  a  ftrong  and  firm  convic- 
**  tion  :  And  hence  it  became  very  unoperative  and  ineffectual 
•*  to  the  mofl  of  them,  when  they  had  greateft  need  of  it ; 
**  namely,  upon  imminent  or  incumbent  temporal  eviisof  great 
**  preffure.  But,  where  the  impreifiion  was  firmed  among  them, 
*'  yet  ftill  they  were  in  the  dark  what  it  was." 

7.  It  is  further  to  be  confidered,  that  it  is  not  the  general  per* 
fuafion  that  there  is  a  ftate  of  future  happinefs  and  mifery,  which 

caa 

*  Cicero  Tuf.  Queft.  Lib.  r. 

+  "  But  I  know  not  how  it  happens,  that  althc-gh  I  affent  to  him 
**  as  long  as  I  am  reading,  yet  when  I  have  laid  down  the  book,  and 
"  begun  to  think  with  myfelf  of  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  all  that 
«<  aflent  vanilhes."  • 


}26  AN    INdUIRY   INTO   THE        chap,  vi, 

can  avail  *;  but  there  iriun  be  a  difcovery  of  that  happlnefs  in  its 
nature,  or  wherein  it  confifts;  its  excellency  and  fuitablenefs,  to 
engage  man  to  look  on  it  as  his  chief  good,  purfue  it  as  fuch, 
perievere  in  the  purfalt  over  all  oppolition,  and  forego  other 
things,  which  he  fees  and  knows  the  prefent  pleafure  and  advan- 
tage of,  for  it.  Now,  fuch  a  view  the  light  of  nature  can  never  ra» 
tionally  be  pretended  to  be  able  to  give :  If  it  is,  let  the  pretender 
lliew  us  where,  and  by  whom  fuch  an  account  has  been  given  and 
verified  ;  or  let  him  do  it  himfelf.  And  if  this  is  not  dene,  as  it 
never  has,  and  I  fear  not  to  fay  never  can  be  done  ;  it  wou!d  not 
mend  the  matter,  though  we  iliculd  forego  all  that  has  been 
abovefaid,  ^as  vv'as  above  infinuated),  which  yet  we  fee  no  ne- 
ceffity  of  doing. 

8.  I  might  here  tell  how  faintly  the  deifts  ufe  to  fpeak  upon 
this  head.  Though  upon  occafion,  they  can  be  pofitive;  yet  at 
other  times  they  fpeak  modelUy  about  the  being  of  a  future  flate 
of  happinefs.and  tell  us,**  That  rewards  and  punifliments  hereaf- 
**  ter,  though  the  nofionofthem  has  not  been  univerfally  receiv- 
**  ed,  the  Heathens  difagreeing  abo'jt  the  doctrine  of  the  immor- 
**  tality  of  the  foul,  may  yet  be  granted  to  feem  reafonable,  becaufe 
**  they  are  deduced  from  the  doctrine  of  providence,— and  that 
**  they  may  be  granted  parts  of  natural  religion, becaufe  the  wifefl 
**  men  have  inclined  to  hold  them  amongft  the  Heathen  f  ,"^c« 
and  now  do  in  all  opinions.  And  as  they  feem  not  over  certain 
as  to  the  being  of  future  rewards  and  puniQ^rr.ents,  fo  they  plainly* 
own  they  can  give  no  account  what  they  are.  **  Qua  vera,  qualist 
**  quanta^  &:c.  k^c  vitajtcunda  vd  mors  Juerit  ob  deftBum  condi" 
'*  tionum  ad  veritrJus  iflius  conformationtm  pojluldtaruniy  fciri 
•*  nequit,"  i^ys  the  learned  Herbert  %, 


CHAB, 


*  Herbert  de  Veritate,  y^g.  59. 

+  Orac.  of  Reafon,  png.  201. 

%  De  Ver.  pag.  57.  ^  Alihi  f^phts, — "  "But  what,  of  what  kind« 
«  and  how  great,  thiR  fecond  lik  or  death  fnall  be,  can  not  be  known, 
««  for  want  of  thofe  CvirJitions  that  are  required  for  th«  confirmation  ti 
«  the  truth  of  it." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      127 


CHAP.      VII. 

Natures  Light  affords  not  a  fufficient  Rule  of  Duty*     Its  In" 

jufficicncy  hence  injeried, 

THERE  is  certainly  no  other  way  of  attaining  bappinefs,  than 
by  pleafmg  God.  Happineis  is  no  other  way  to  be  had,  than 
from  him,  and  no  other  way  can  we  reaionably  expert  it  from 
him,  h.\Xm\.\iZ 'W2Ly  oi duty  OT  obedience.  Obedience  nnjft  either 
be  with  refpecl  to  thele  things  wl  ich  in  mediatelv  regard  the 
honour  of  the  Deity,  or-  in  other  things.  The  injifficitncy  9]  na^ 
tural  religion  as  to  wor[hip,  has  been  above  den:ohOrated.  i  hat 
it  is  wanting  as  to  the  latter,  viz.  thefe  duties  which  we  cal- 
led, for  diftinclion's  fake,  dudes  oj  moral  obedience,  is  now  to 
be  proven.  That  man  is  fubjett  to  Gcd,  and  fo  in  every 
thing  obh'ged  to  regulate  himfelf  according  to  the  prefcriptidn 
of  God,  has  been  above  aflerted,  and  the  grounds  of  this  af" 
fertion,  have  been  more  than  infmuated.  Now  if  nature's 
light  is  not  able  to  afford  a  complete  directory  as  to  the  whole 
of  man's  conduct,  in  fo  far  as  the  Deity  is  concerned,  it  can 
never  be  allowed  fufficient  to  condu6t  man  in  religion,  and  lead 
him  to  eternal  happnefs :  While  it  leaves  him  at  a  lofs  as  to  luffi- 
cient  rules  for  univerfal  virtue,  which  even  deifts  own  to  be  the 
principal  way  of  ferving  God  and  obtaining  happinefs.  It  is 
one  of  the  principal  things  to  which  this  is  to  be  afcribed,  and 
whereon  man's  hopes  muil:  reafonably  be  fuppofed  to  lean,  if  he  is 
left  to  the  mere  conduft  of  the  light  of  nature.  Now  tie  infuffi- 
ciency  of  nature's  light  in  this  point  will  be  fully  made  appear, 
from  the  enfuin^-  confiderations;  fome  of  which  are  excellently 
difcourfed  by  the  ingenious  Mr.  Lock  in  his  Reajonablenefs  of 
Ch'njiianityy  as  delivered  in  the  Scripture*.  If  be  had  done  as 
well  in  other  points  as  in  this,  he  had  deferved  the  thanks  of  all 
that  willi  well  to  Chriftianity  :  But  fo  far  as  he  follows  the  truth 
we  fhall  take  his  affillanre,  and  improve  fome  of  his  noiions,  ad- 
ding fuch  others^  as  are  by  him  omitted,  which  may  be  judged  of 
ufe  to  the  cafe  in  hand. 

I.  Then  we  obferve,  that  no  man  left  to  the  conduct  merely  of 
nature's  light,  hasoiteredus  a  complete  body  of  morality*     Some 
parts  of  our  duty  aire  pretty  fully  taught  by  philofopheis  and  poli- 
ticians 

*  Reaf.  of  Chrift.  pag.  267. 


128  AN  INCiUiRY  INTO  THE       cWap. vii* 

ticians.  *'  So  much  virtue  as  was  rieceffary  to  hold  focleties  toge^ 
**  ther,  and  to  contribute  to  the  quiet  of  governments,  the  civil 
**  laws  of  commonwealths  taught,  and  forced  upon  men  that  liv- 
**  ed  under  magiftrates.  But  thefe  laws,  being  for  the  moft  part 
**  made  by  fuch,  who  have  no  other  aims  but  their  own  power, 
'*  reached  no  further  than  thofe  things  that  would  ferve  to  tie  men 
**  together  in  fubjedlion  ;  or  at  mort,  were  dire(?tly  to  conduce 
'*  to  the  profperity  and  temporal  happinefs  of  any  people.  But 
**  natural  religion  in  its  full  extent,  was  no  where,  that  1  know 
•*  of,  taken  care  of  by  the  force  of  natural  rcafon.  It  ihould  feem 
**  by  the  little  that  hitherto  has  been  done  in  it,  that  it  is  too  hard 
"  a  thing  for  unaflifted  reafon  to  eftablilh  morality  in  all  its 
**  parts,  upon  its  true  foundations,  with  a  clear  and  convincing 
**  light*.  '  Some  pirts  have  been  noticed,  and  others  quiteomittcd. 
A  complete  fyflem  of  morality  in  its  whole  extent  has  never  beeri 
attempted  by  the  mere  light  of  nature,  much  lefs  completed. 

2.  To  gather  together  the  fcattered  rules  that  are  to  be  met 
with  in  the  writings  of  morality ,  and  v/eave  thefe  ihrcds  into  a 
competent  body  of  morality ^  in  fofaras  even  the  particular  di- 
rection of  any  one  man  would  require,  is  a  work  of  that  im- 
menfe  labour,  and  requires  fo  much  learning,  ftudy  and  atten- 
tion, that  it  has  never  been  performed,  and  never  like  to  be  per- 
formed, and  quite  furmounts  the  capacity  of  mod,  if  not  of 
any  one  man.  So  that  neither  is  there  a  complete  body  of  mo- 
rality given  us  by  any  one.  Nor  is  it  ever  likely  to  be  colle6ted 
from  thofe  who  have  given  us  parcels  of  it. 

3.  Were  all  the  moral  directions  of  the  ancient  fages  collect- 
ed, it  would  not  be  a  fyftem  that  would  be  any  way  ufeful  to 
the  body  of  mankind.  It  would  confiH  for  moft  part  of  enig- 
matical, dark  and  involved  fentences,  that  would  need  a  com- 
n.entary  too  long  for  vulgar  leifure  to  perufe,  to  make  them  in- 
telligible. Any  one  that  is  in  the  leaft  meafure  acquainted 
with  the  writings  of  the  philofophers  will  not  queftion  this.  Of 
what  ufe  would  it  be  to  read  fuch  morality  as  that  of  Pythagoras, 
whofe  famed  fentences  were,  **  Poake  not  in  the  fire  with  a 
**  fword  ;  ftride  not  over  the  beam  of  a  balance;  fit  not  upon 
**  a  bufhel  ;  eat  not  the  heart ;  take  up  your  burthen  with  help; 
**  eafe  yourfelf  of  it  with  afliftance  ;  have  always  your  bed- 
**  clothes  well  tucked  up ;  carry  not  the  image  of  God  about 

**  you 

*  Rcaf.  of  Chrift.  pag.  26S. 

+  Diog.  Laeit.  Life  ©f  Pythagoras. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        129 

**  you  in  a  ring,"  &c.  Was  this  like  to  be  of  any  ufe  to  man^ 
kind  ?  No  furely,  fome  of  them  indeed  fpeak  more  plain,  fome 
of  them  lefs  fo  ;  but  none  of  them  fufficiently  plain  to  be  un- 
derftood  by  the  vulgar. 

4.  Further,  were  this  colle6tion  made,  and,  upon   other  ac- 
counts, unexceptionable  ;  yet  it  would  not  be  fufficiently  full  to 
be  an  univerfal  dire6\ory.  For,  i.  Many  important  duties  would 
be  wanting.    Self-denial,  that  confifts  in  a  mean  opinion  of  our- 
ielves,  and  leads  to  a  fubmitting,  and  pafling  from  all  our   mod 
valuable  concerns,  when  the  honour  of  God  requires  it,  is  the 
fundamental  duty  of  all  religion, that  which  is  of  abfolute  neceffity 
to  a  due   acknowledgment  of  man's  fubje6^Ion  and  dependence  ; 
and  yet  we  {hall  find  a  deep  filence  in  all  the  moralifts  about  it» 
Which  defect  is  the  more  confiderable,  that  the  whole   of  our 
apoftacy  is  eafily  reducible  to  this  one  point,  ^«  endeavour  tofubje^ 
the  will,  concerns  and  pleasures  of  God  to  our  own*     And  no  adl 
of  obedience  to  him,  can,  without  grofs  ignorance  of  his  nature^ 
and  unacquaintednefs  with  the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  be  pre- 
sumed acceptable,  which  flows  not  from  fuch  a  principle  of  felf- 
denial,  as  fixedly  prefer  the  concerns  of  God's  glory  to  all  other 
things.     Again,  what  duty   have  wc  more  need  of,  than   that 
which  is  employed  in  forgiving  enemies,  nay  in  loving  them?  We 
have  frequent  occalions  for  it.  If  we  are  not  acquainted  that  this 
is  duty,  wc  muft    frequently   run   into  the   oppofite    (in.     But 
where  is  this  taught  among  the  Heathens?  Further,  where  fhall 
we  find   a  direcSlory   as  to  the  inward  frame   and  aSings  of  our 
rfiinds,  guiding   us    how   to  regulate  our  thoughts,  our  defigns? 
Some  notice  is  taken  of  the  outward  behaviour;  but  little  of  that 
which  is  ihefpring  of  it.     Where  is  there  a  rule  for  the  dire6^ion 
of  our  thoughts  as  to  objeHs  about  which  they  fhould  be  employed, 
or  as  to  the  manner  wherein  they  arc  to  be  converfant  about  them  ? 
Thefe  things  are  of  great  importance,  and  yet  by  very  far  out 
of  the    ken    of  unenlightened    nature.     Divine  and    Spiritual 
things  were  little  known,  and  lefs  thought  of  by  philofophers. 
2.  As  this  fyflem  would  be  defe6\ive   as  to  particular  duties  of 
the  highefl  importance  ,*  io  it  would  be  quite  defeiSlivc  as  fo  the 
grounds  of  thofe  duties  which  are  enjoined.    It  is  not  enough  to 
recommend  duty,  that  it  is  ufeful  to  us,  or  the  focieties  we  Jive 
in.     When  we  a£^  only  on  fuch  grounds,  we  fliew  fome  regard 
to  ourfelves,  and  the  focieties  whereof  we  are  members ;  but 
none  to  God.     Where  are  thefe  cleared  to  be  the  laws  of  God'^ 
Who  is  he  that  prefTcs  obedience  upon  the  confciences  of  men, 

Q^  from 


t30  AN   INQ,UIRY   INTO  THE       chap,  vn, 

from  the  confideration  of  God's  authority  Oamped  upon  thefe 
laws  he  prefcribes?  And  yet  without  this,  you  may  call  it  v/hat 
you  will;  obedience  you  cannot  call  it.  It  is  well  obferved  by 
Mr.  Lock, — '^  Thofe  juft  meafures  of  right  and  wrong,  which 
**  neceffity  had  any  where  introduced,  the  civil  laws  prefcrib- 
**  ed,  or  philofophers  recommended,  flood  not  on  their  true 
**  foundations.  They  were  looked  on  as  bonds  of  fociety,  and 
**  conveniencies  of  cotiiinon  life,  and  laudable  practices  :~  But 
**  where  was  it  that  their  obligation  was  thoroughly  known, 
**  and  allowed,  and  they  received  as  precepts  of  a  law,  of  the 
*'  higheft  law,  the  law  of  nature  ?  That  could  not  be  without 
**  the  clear  knowledge  of  the  lawgiver,  and  the  great  rewards 
**  or  punilhments  for  thofe  that  would  not,  or  wouid  obey.  But 
**  the  religion  of  the  Heathens,  as  was  before  obferved,  little 
"  concerned  itfelf  in  their  morals.  The  prieOs  that  delivered 
**  the  oracles  of  heaven,  and  pretended  to  fpeak  from  the  gods, 
**  fpoke  little  of  virtue  and  a  good  life.  Av.d  on  the  other  fide^ 
**  the  philofophers  who  fpoke  from  reafon,  made  not  much 
*t  mention  of  the  Deity  in  their  ethicks  *." 

5.  Not  only  would  this  rule  be  defedive  and  lame  ;  but  it 
would  be  found  corrupt  and  pernicious.  For,  i.  Inflead  of 
leading  them  in  the  luayj  it  would  in  many  inftances  lead  them 
afidi*  We  Ihould  have  here  Epi6letus  binding  you  to  tempo- 
rize,  and  *'  worfiiip  the  gods  after  the  failiion  of  your  coun- 
**  try  f."  You  (liould  find  Pythagoras  *'  forbidding  you  to 
'*  pray  for  yourfelf  to  God  4,"  becaufe  you  know  not  what  is 
convenient.  You  (liould  find  Ariftctle  and  Cicero  commending 
revenge  as  a  duty.  The  latter  you  fl  ould  find  defending  Bru- 
tus and  Cafiius  for  killing  Ceiar,  and  thereby  authorizing  the 
murder  of  any  magifirates,  if  the  adiors  can  but  perfuade  them- 
felves  that  they  are  tyrants.  Had  we  nothing  to  condu6^  us  ia 
our  obedience  and  loyalty,  but  ihe  fentiments  of  philofophers, 
no  prince  could  be  fecurc  either  of  his  life  or  dignity.  You 
fhould  find  Cicero  pleading  \or  felf -murder,  from  which  he  can 
never  be  freed,  nor  can  any  tolerable  apology  be  made  for  him- 
Herein  he  was  fecondcd  by  Brutus,  Cato,  Caffius,  Seneca  ard 
others  innumerable.  Many  of  them  pra(Siifed  it ;  others  ap- 
plauded  of  their  fentiments  in  this  matter.     You  may   find  a 

large 

*  Reafonr\hIcnefsof  Chiiftianlty,  pa^.  27S. 

+  Epia,  Enchirid.  Cap.  38. 

%  Di»g.  Laert.  Vit,  Pyth.  pag.  7. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS. 


^3^ 


large  account  in  Mr.  VfodwoVs  Jpology  for  the  Pkilofophical  Per" 
formances  of  Cicero  prefixed  to  Mr.  Parker's  tranilation  of  his 
book  de  Finifus*  And  you  may  find  the  delfts  juftifying  this  in 
the  preface  to  the  Oracles  of  Reaforif  wherein  Blount's  killing 
of  himfelf  is  juftlfied.  Of  the  fame  mind  was  Seneca,  who  ex- 
prefsly  advifes  the  pia6^ice  of  it.  We  fhould  here  find  cuflomary 
fwearing commended* ^  if  not  by  their  precepts,  yet  by  the  examples 
of  the  heji  moratifts,V\2iXoj  Socrates, and  Seneca.  In  whom  numer- 
ous inftances  of  oaths  by  Jupiter,  Hercules,  and  by  beafts,  do  oc- 
cur. In  the  fame  way  we  fhould  find  ufinatural  luji  recommended'^'* 
Ariftotle  pra6iifed  it.  And  Socrates  is  foully  belied,  if  he  loved 
TiOt  the  fame  vice.  Whence  elfe  could  Socratici  Cznadicoweto 
be  a  proverb  in  Juvenal's  days.  Pride  and  ftf-efeem  were  among 
their  virtues*  Which  gives  me  occafion  to  obferve,  that  this 
one  thing  overturned  their  whole  morality.  Epl6\etus,  one  of 
the  bcft  of  all  their  moralifts,  tells  us,  *'  That  the  conftitution 
**  and  image  of  a  philofopher  is  to  expe6l  good,  as  well  as  fear 
**  evil,  only  from  himfelf  |."  Seneca  urgeth  this  every  where— 
**  Sapiens  tarn,  cequo  animo  omnia  apud  alios  videt^  contemnitque^ 
**  quam  ]\xmitx  :  Et  hoc  fe  magi i  fufpicit,  quod  Jupher  uti  iliis 
**  non  poeJ?f  fapiens  non  vulf^,^'  And  again,  **  EJl  aliquid 
**  quo  fapiens  anteced.it  Deum.  Ille  nafura  beneficio,  non  fuo, 
**  fapiens  eft  ||.  Incomptus  vir  fit  externis  3*  infuperabiliSy  mtra- 
**  torque  tantum  fui**.''  **  Friae  and  fcif-eftcem  was  adifeafe 
**  epidemical  amongft  them,  and  feems  wholly  incurable  by  any 
**  notions  that  they  had.  Some  arrived  to  th.it  impudence  to 
'*  compare  themfelves  with,  nay,  prefer  themfelves  before  their 
*^  own  gods.  It  was  either  a  horrible  folly  to  deify  what  they 
**  poftponed  to  their  own  felf-eftimation,  or  elfe  it  was  aflupen- 

dous 

*  Seneca  de  Ira,  Lib.  ?,  Cap.  15, 

+  Diog,  Laert-  Vita  Ariit.  Lib-  5.  pag.  323. 

J  Epid.  Each.  Cap.  27. 

^  Seneca,  Epift.  73. — <'  A  wife  man  beholds  and  defpifes  all  things 
«  that  he  f^es  in  the  poffeffion  of  others,  with  as  eafy  a  mind  as  Ju- 
«<  piter  himfelf.  And  in  this  he  admires  hirafelf  the  mere,  that  Jupi- 
«  ter  cannot  ufe  thofe  things  which  he  defpifes,  whereas  the  wife 
"  man  can  ufe  them,  but  will  not." 

II  Id.  Epill.  53. — "  There  is  fomething  in  which  a  wife  man  excels 
"  Godi  as  God  is  wife  by  the  benefit  of  his  nature,  and  not  by  his 
«■  o^vn." 

**  Id.  de  njita  Beatay  Cap.  8. — "  Let  a  man  be  incorruptible  and 
"  incorrigible  be  external  things,  and  an  adtnirc^r  of  himfelf  alone,  ' 


132  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE       qhap.  vn, 

**  dous  efFefl  of  their  pride  to  prefer  themfelves  to  the  godo 
**  that  they  worihipped.  Never  any  man  amongrt  them  propo- 
*'  fed  the  honour  of  their  gods  as  the  chief  end  of  their  ac- 
*'  tions,  nor  fo  much  as  dreamed  of  any  fuch  thing  ,*  it  is  evident 
**  that  the  beft  of  them  in  their  beft  a6iion5  refledled  ftill  back  to 
**  themfehes,  and  determinated  there,  defigning  to  fet  up  a  pil- 
**  lar  to  their  own  fame*."  That  known  fentence  of  Cicero^ 
who  fpeaks  out  plainly  what  others  thought,  will  juftlfy  this  fc- 
vere  cenfure  given  by  this  worthy  perfon,  Fuii  plane  virius 
honoran  :  Nee  virtutis  uUa  alia  merces  f.  Were  it  needful,  1 
might  write  volumes  to  this  purpofe,  that  would  make  one's  flefh 
tremble  to  read.  They  who  defire  fali=>fa6\ion  in  this  point, 
may  find  it  largely  done  by  others.  I  fl)all  conclude  this  firft 
evidence  of  the  corruption  of  their  morality ^  with  this  general 
reiiedtion  of  the  learned  Amyrald  in  his  Treatife  of  Religions  ; 
**  Scarce  can  there  be  found  any  commonwealth  amongft  thofe, 
**  which  have  been  efteemed  the  beft  governed,  in  which  fome 
*'  grand  and  fignal  vice  has  not  been  excufed,  or  permitted,  or 
"  even  fometimes  recommended  by  public  laws  J.  2.  Not  on- 
ly did  they  enjoin  wron^  things  ;  but  they  enjoined  what  was 
right  to  a  zurong  endy  yea  even  their  beft  things,  as  we  heard 
jufl  now,  aimed  at  their  own  honour.  We  have  heard  Cicero 
to  this  purpofe  telling  plainly  that  honour  zoas  their  ai?n»  Or 
what  the  poet  faid  of  Brutus  killing  his  own  fons  when  they  in- 
tended the  overthrow  of  the  liberty  of  their  country, 

Ficit  a?nor  putrice  laudumqiie  immenfa  cupido  J, 

is  the  moft  that  can  be  pleaded  for  moft  of  them.  Others  are 
plainly  blafphemous,  as  we  have  heard  from  Seneca,  defigning 
to  be  above  God  by  his  virtue.  At  this  rate  this  philofopher 
talks  very  oft  :  *'  Let  philofophy,"  fays  he,"  miniftcr  this  to  me, 
**  that  it  render  me  equal  to  God  \\."  To  the  maintenance  of 
this,  their  notions  about  the  foul  of  man  contributed  much  ; 
Hiling  it  a  piece  dipt  from  God  'ATroo-Traa^//,^  ra  0£t,  or  a  part  of 

God, 

*  Sir  Char,  WoUeley's  Reafon.  of  Scriptare  Belief,  pag.  ii8. 

+  Cicero  de  Amicina. — "  Virtue  certainly  will  have  honour,  nor  is 
**■  there  any  other  reward  of  virtue." 

X  See  indanccs  to  this  purpofe  in  a  dilcourfe  of  Moral  Virtue,  and 
its  dia^:rence  frcm  Grace,  pag.  225- 

§  "  The  love  of  his  country,  and  his  irr.nicnfe  defire  of  praife,  over- 
«  came  him.'' 

Ij  Seneca,  Epillle  48. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       133 

God,  tS  A/oV  Ms^©-,  as  Epicletus  fpeaks.  Horace  calls  it  di^ 
vincK  particula  aura.  Cicero  in  his  Somnium  Scip,  tells  us 
what  they  thought  of  themfelves,  Demn  fato  te  ejfi — "  Know 
**  thyfelf  to  be  a  God.'*  And  accordingly  the  Indian  Brach- 
mans  vouched  themfelves  for  Gods.  And  indeed  they,  who  de- 
bafed  their  Gods  below  men,  by  their  abominable  characters  of 
them,  it  was  no  v/onder  to  find  them  prefer  themfelves  to  them. 
Nor  did  any  run  higher  this  way  than  Plato.  Let  i)ny  one  read 
his  arguments  for  the  immortality  of  the  foul ^  and  if  they  prove 
any  thing,  they  prove  it  a  Gcd»  Thus  they  quite  corrupted  all 
they  taught,  by  direcllng  It  to  wrong  ends.  3.  This  fyO.em 
would  corrupt  us  as  to  the  fountain  of  virtue  and  its  principlt, 
teaching  us  to  truft  ourfelves,  and  not  depend  on  God  for  it. 
We  have  heard  fome  fpeak  to  this  purpofe  already  ;  and  Cicero 
may  well  be  allowed  to  fpeak  for  the  reft.  '*  A  Deo  tanium 
**  rationem  habemus  :  Bonam  autem  ratLonem  aut  fion  bonam  a 
**  nobis*.''  And  a  little  after,  near  the  clofe  of  his  book,  after  he 
has  owned  our  external  advantages  of  learning  to  be  from  God,  he 
fubjoins — **  Virtutem  autem  nemo  unqumn  accepiam  Deo  retulit, 
**  nimiruju  reBe :  Propter  virtutem  eni??i  jure  lauda?nur,  6? 
**  in  virtute  rede  gloriaviur,  quod  nan  contingeret,  fi  id  donum 
**  a  DeOf  non  a  nobis  kaberemiisf."  Thus  we  fee  how  corrupt 
they  were  in  this  point,  and  it  is  here  eafily  obfervable  whence 
they  were  corrupted  as  to  their  chief  end.  He  that  believes  that 
he  has  any  thing  that  is  not  from  God,  will  have  fomewhat  aifo 
that  he  will  not  refer  to  him,  as  his  chief  end.  4.  The  corrup- 
tion of  this  fyftem,  would  in  this  appear,  that  it  would  he  full 
of  contraditlions.  Here  we  fhall  find  nothing  but  endlefs  jaris  ; 
one  condemning  as  abominable,  what  another  approves  and 
praifes  :  Whereby  we  fhould  be  led  to  judge  neither  riglit,  ra- 
ther than  any  of  them.  A  man  who,  for  dlre^S^flon,  will  be- 
take himfelf  to  the  declarations  of  the  philofophers,  goes  into  a 
wild  wood  of  uncertainty,  and  into  an  eridleis  maze,  from  which 

he 

*  Cicero  de  Natura  Deornra,  Lib.  3.  P.  mini,  173. — "  We  hare 
«  only  reaton  from  God,  but  we  have  good  or  bad  reafon  from  cur- 
<f  felve!5." 

i  "  Ba-t  nobody  ever  acknowledged  that  he  was  indebted  to  God  for 
"  his  virtue,  and  certainly  with  good  reafon ;  for  we  aie  juilly  pralfed 
"  on  account  of  our  viriue,  and  we  jutUy  boaft  of  it,  which  could  not 
"  be  the  cafe,  if  we  had  that  as  a  gift  from  God,  and  not  from  our- 
«  felves." 


131  AN   INCtUlRY  INTO    THE      chap.  vii. 

he  fliould  never  get  out.  Plenty  of  Inftances,  confirming  thefe 
two  iall  inentioncd  oblervations,  might  be  adduced.  If  the  rea- 
der defire  them,  I  iliall  refer  him  to  Mr.  Lock's  Effay  on  Human 
Under jlandingy  Book  i.  Chap,  3.  Parag.  9.  where  he  may  fee  it 
has  been  cuftomary  with  not  a  few  nations,  to  expofe  their  chil- 
dren, bury  them  alive  without  fcruple,  fatten  them  for  the 
flaughter,  kill  them  and  eat  them,  and  difpatch  their  aged  pa- 
rents :  yea  fome,  he  will  find,  have  been  fo  abfurd,  as  to  expecl 
paradife  as  a  reward  of  rtven.ge,  and  of  eating  abundance  of  their 
enemies.  Whether  thefe  inftances  will  anfwer  Mr.  Lock's  pur- 
pofe,  I  difpute  not  now,  I  defign  not  to  make  myfelf  a  party 
in  that  controverfy.  But  I  am  fure  futh  fatal  mirtakes,  as  to 
what  is  good  and  evil,  area  pregnant  evidence  of  the  infufficl- 
ency  of  nature's  light  to  alFoid  us  a  complete  rule  of  duty.  If 
they,  who  were  left  to  it,  blundered  fo  Ihamefully  in  the  clear- 
eft  cafes,  how  (hall  we  exped  direction,  as  to  thefe  that  are  far 
more  intricate  ? 

6.  Be  this  fyftem  never  fo  complete,  yet  it  can  never  be  allow- 
ed to  be  a  rule  of  life  to  mankind.  This  I  cmnot  better  fatisfy 
rnyfelf  upon,  than  hv  tranicribine  what  the  ingenious  Mr.  Lock 
lias  excellently  difcourfed  on  t.iis  head.  '•  1  will  fupnofe  there 
**  was  a  Stoheus  in  thofe  times,  who  had  gathered  the  moral  Jay 
**  ings  from  all  \}c\t  fa;ges  of  the  wor^d.  What  would  this  amount 
*'  to,  towards  being;  a  fteady  ru'e,  a  certain  tranfcript  of  a  law, 
**  that  we  are  under  ?  Did  the  faying  of  AriRippus,  or  Confucius, 
./**  give  it  authority  ?  Was  Zeno  a  lawgiver  to  mankind?  If 
'  **  not,  what  he  or  any  other  philofopher  deli\/ered,  was  but  a 
**  faying  of  his*  Mankind  might  hearken  to  it  or  reject  it  as 
**  they  pleafed,  or  as  it  fuited  their  intereft,  paffions,  principles, 
**  or  humours.  They  were  under  no  obligation  :  The  opinion 
**  of  this  or  that  philofopher,  was  of  no  authority.  And  if  it 
**  were,  you  mufl  take  all  he  faid  under  the  fame  chara61er. 
**  All  his  dictates  muft  go  for  law,  certain  and  true  ;  or  none  of 
**  them.  And  then  ifvou  will  take  the  moral  fayings  of  Epicu- 
**  rus  (many  whereof  Seneca  q"'J0tes  with  approbation)  for  pre- 
<*  cepts  of  the  law  of  natuie,  you  mufi  take  all  the  rel^  of  his 
**  do6lrine  for  fu'ch  too,  or  ?Ife  his  authority  ceafes  :  So  no  more 
*'  is  to  be  received  from  him,  or  any  ol  the  fagesofold,  for  parts 
**  of  the  law  of  nature,  as  carrying  with  them  an  obligation  to  be 
**  obeyed,  but  what  they  prove  to  be  fo.  But  fuch  a  body  of 
**  cthicks,  proved  to  be  the  law  nature,  from  principles  or  reaion, 
**  and  reachins:  all  the  duties  of  life,  1  ihiijk  no  body  v/ill  fay 

"  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       135 

**  the  world  had  before  our  Saviour's  time."  And  I  may  add,  nor 
to  this  day  has,  by  the  mere  light  of  nature*  **  It  is  not  enough/* 
continues  he,  "  that  there  were  up  and  down  fcattered  fayings 
*'  of  wife  men,  conformable  to  right  reafon.  The  law  of  nature 
**  was  the  law  of  conveniency  too:  And  it  is  no  wonder  thefe 
**  men  of  parts,  and  (tudicus  of  virtue,  (who  had  occafion  to  think 
"  of  any  particular  part  of  it)  (liould,  by  meditation,  light  on 
**  the  right,  even  from  the  obfervable  conveniency  and  beauty 
**  of  it,  without  making  out  its  obligation  from  the  true  prin- 
**  ciples  of  the  law  of  nature,  and  foundations  of  morality." 
More  he  adds  judicioufly  to  this  purpofe  ;  but  this  is  enough. 
And  hence  it  is  plain,  that  fuch  a  fyfiem  of  morality  would,  if 
co]le61ed,  at  befl  be  only  a  collection  of  problems,  which  eve- 
ry man  is  left  at  liberty  to  canvafs,  difpute,  or  rejc6\  ;  nay 
more,  which  every  man  is  obliged  to  examine  as  to  all  its  parts, 
in  fo  far  as  it  prefcribes  rules  to  him,  and  not  to  receive,  but 
upon  a  difcovery  of  its  truth  from  its  proper  principles. 

7.  It  is  then  plain  that  every  man  is  left  to  his  own  reafon  to 
find  out  his  duty  by.  He  is  not  to  receive  it  upon  any  other  au- 
thority than  that  of  reafon,  if  revelation  is  reje<?ted.  He  muft 
find  out  therefore,  in  every  cafe,  what  he  is  to  do,  and  deduce 
its  obligation  from  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nature.  But  who 
fees  not,  that  the  rnofi:  part  of  men  have  neither  Icifure  nor  capa- 
city for  i'uch  a  work?  Meamay  think  duty  eafy  to  be  difcovered 
now,  when  Chrirtianity  has  cleared  it  up.  But  Mr.  Lock  well 
cbferves,**  That  the  flrft  knowledge  of  thofe  truths,  which  have 
**  been  difcovered  byChriflian  philofophers,  or  philofophers  fince 
**  Chriftianity  prevailed,  is  owing  to  revelation  ;  though  asfoon  as 
**  they  are  heard  and  coniidered,  they  are  found  to  be  agreeable 
**  to  reafon,  and  fuch  as  can  by  no  means  be  contradicted.  Every 
**  one  may  obferve  a  great  many  truths  v.-hich  he  receives  at  firH; 
*'  from  others, and  readily  aficn's  to, as  confonant  to  reaion, which 
"  he  would  have  found  it  hard,  and  perhaps  beyond  hisflrength 
*'  to  have  dilcovered  himfelf.  Native  and  original  truth,  is  not 
**  fo  eafiiy  wrought  out  of  the  mine,  as  we  who  have  it  delivered 
**  ready  clv^  and  faff  ioned  into  cur  hards,  are  apt  to  imagine, 
"  And  how  often  at  fifty, and  threefcore  years  old,  are  thinking 
*'  men  told,  what  they  wonder  how  they  could  mifs  thinking 
*'  of?  Whi  h  yet  their  own  contemplations  did  not,  and  polPitly 

never  would  have  helped  them  to.  Experience  fhe-^s,  that  the 
**  knowledge  of  m.orality,  by  mere  natural  light  (how  agreeable 
**  foever  it  be  to  it),  makes  but  a  flow  progrefs  and  little  advance 


(( 


135  AN  INQUIRY   INTO  THE       chap,  vii; 

"  in  the  world:  Whatever  was  the  caufe,  it  is  plain  in  fa6l,  that 
"  human  reafon,  unaffifted,  failed  men  in  its  great  and  proper 
**  bufmefs  of  morality." 

8.  As  it  is  unquefiionably  certain,  that  the  raoR  part  of  man- 
kind arc  not  able,  by  their  own  reafon  to  frame  a  complete  body 
of  morality  for  ihemfelves,  or  find  out  what  is  their  own  duty 
in  every  particular  indance.  (I  ftiall  not  fpeak  of  any  man's  be- 
ing obliged  to  difcover  what  belongs  to  other  people's  duty,  left 
our  antagonifts  (hould  fufpei5l  Idefigned  to  open  a  door  for  priefts, 
afet  of  men  and  an  office  which  they  mortally  hate).  I  fpeak  only 
of  what  is  every  one's  duty  in  particular.  And  I  fay  it  is  evident, 
that  the  moft  part  of  mankind  are  unable  to  find  this,  which  is 
Dot  to  be  done,  but  by  fuch  f^rains  of  reafoning,  and  connexion 
©f  confequences,  which  they  have  neither  leifure  to  weigh,  nor, 
for  want  of  capacity,  education  and  ufe,  (kill  to  judge  of;  and 
as  I  fay,  they  are  unable  for  this,  fo  I  fear  this  tafk  will  be 
found  too  hard  for  the  ableft  philofophers*  Particular  duties 
sre  fo  many,  and  many  of  them  fo  remote  fiom  the  firft  prin- 
ciples,  and  the  connexion  is  fo  fubtile  and  fine  fpun,  that  I 
fear  not  to  fay  that  it  mufl:  cfcape  the  piercing  eyes  of  the  mod 
acute  philofophers  :  and  if  they  engage  in  purfuit  of  the  difco- 
very,  through  fo  many  and  fo  fubtile  confequences,  they  mufl: 
either  quit  the  unequal  chace,  or  lofe  themfelvea  inftead  of 
finding  truth  and  duty.  And  if  we  allow  ourfelves  to  judge  of 
v'hat  (hall  be,  by  what  has  been  the  fuccefs  of  fuch  attempts,  I 
am  fure  this  is  more  than  bare  guefs. 

9.  It  is  further  to  he  obferved,  that  no  tolerable  progrefs  could 
be  made  herein,  were  it  to  be  done  before  advanced  years.  But 
it  is  certain,  that  youth,  as  well  as  riper  age,  is  under  the  law 
of  nature^  and  that  that  age  needs  clear  difcoveries  of  duty  the 
more,  that  in  it  irregular  paffions  and  inclinations  arc  more  vi- 
gorous, and  it  is  expofed  to  more  temptations  than  any  other 
part  of  a  man's  life  ;  and  befides,  it  wants  the  advantages  of 
experience,  to  fortify  it  againft  the  dangerous  influence  of  them, 
which  advanced  years  are  attended  with.  Now  it  will  be  to 
no  purpofe  to  me,  to  find  out  fome  years  hence  what  was  my 
duty  before,  as  to  obedience  ;  for  now  the  feafon  is  over.  The 
law  may  difcover  my  fin,  but  can  never  regulate  my  praElice^ 
in  a  period  of  my  life  that  is  paft  and  gone.  Every  man  muft 
hive  the  knowledge  of  each  day's  duty  in  its  feafon.  This  is 
not  to  be  had  from  the  light  of  nature.  If  we  are  left  at  a  lofs  in 
our  younger  years,  as  nature's  light  will   have  us,  we  may  be 

ruined 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       137 

ruined  before  knowledge  come.  Much  fin  mud  be  contrad^ed, 
and  ill  habits  are  like  to  be  very  much  ftrengthened  before  any 
ftop  come  :  yea,  they  may  be  fo  ftrong,  that  the  foundation  of 
inevitable  ruin  may  be  laid. 

Finally,  knowledge  is  requifite  before  a6\ing  ;  at  leaft,  in 
order  of  nature  it  \z  fo,  and  muft,  at  leaft  in  order  of  time,  be 
contemporary.  Acllon  gives  not  always  time  for  long  reafon- 
ing  and  weighing  fuch  trains  of  confequences,  as  are  requifite 
to  clear  duties  from  the  firft  principles  of  nature's  light,  and 
enforce  their  obligation.  And  therefore  man  left  to  it,  is  in  a 
miferable  plight,  not  much  unlike  to  the  cafe  of  the  Romans, 
Du?n  deliberant  Ro?nani  capitur  Saguntum* :  While  he  is 
fearching  for  duty,  the  feafon  is  loft  ;  and  the  difcovery,  if  it 
comes,  arrives  too  late  to  be  of  any  ufe. 

It  is  in  vain  for  any  to  pretend,  that  the  knowledge  of  duty 
is  connate  to  the  mind  of  man.  Whatever  may  be  pretended 
as  to  a  few  of  the  firft  principles  of  morality,  and  it  is  but  a  very 
few  of  which  this  can  be  alleged,  yet  it  iscertain,  it  can  never 
be  without  impudence  extended  to  the  thoufandth  part  of  the 
duties  we  are  bound  to  in  particular  cafes.  General  rules 
may  be  eafy  ;  particular  ones  are  the  difficulty,  and  the 
application  of  generals  to  circumftantiated  cafes  is  a  hard 
tafk.  It  is  but  with  an  ill  grace  pretended,  that  thefe  duties 
are  felf-evident,  and  the  knowledge  of  them  innate  or  connate, 
call  it  what  you  pleafe,to  the  mind  of  man;  which  the  world  has 
never  been  agreed  about ;  which  wife  men,  when  the  faireft  oc- 
cafions  offered  of  thinking  on  them,  could  not  difcern  ;  which 
philolophers,  upon  application  and  attention,  cannot  make  out 
from  the  principles  of  reafon.  The  reafon  why  the  knowledge 
of  any  truth  is  faid  to  be  innate,  is,  becaufe,  cither  the  mind  of 
man  is  ftruck  with  the  evidence  of  it  on  its  firft  propofal, 
and  muft  yield  aflent,  without  feeking  help  from  any  principles 
of  a  clearer  evidence ;  or  becaufe  its  dependence  on  fuch  principles 
is  fo  obvious,  that  the  conclufion  is  fo  plainly  connected  with 
fuch  principles,  that  It  is  never  focner  fpoke  of,  than  its  con- 
nexion with  them,  and  fo  its  truth,  appears.  Of  the  firft  fort 
few  duties  can  be  faid  fo  be.  And  if  they  were  of  the  laft  fort, 
any  perfon  of  a  tolerable  capacity  would  be  able  to  demonftratc 
them  upon  attention.  New  how  far  it  is  otherwifc  in  this  cafe, 
who  fees  not? 

Upon 

*  "  While  the  Romnns  were  deliberating,  Saguntum  was  taken." 

R 


138  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE     chap.  viii. 

Upon  the  whole  I  mud  couclude,  that  nature's  light  is  not 
fufticient  to  give  wsfucka  law  or  rw/^  as  may  be  ?i  fur e  guide  to 
thofe  who  defire  to  go  right,  fo  that  they  need  not  lole  their  way 
or  miftake  their  duty,  if  they  have  a  mind  to  know  it,  nor  be 
uncertain  whether  they  have  done  it. 

It  will  not  relieve  the  deifts  to  pretend,  that  fome  of  the  excep- 
tions above  mentioned  may  be  retorted  upon  Chriftians,  and  im- 
proven  againft  the  fcriptures:  For  nothing  but  ignorance  of  the 
true  fiate  of  the  queflion  can  give  countenance  to  this  pretence. 
The  fcriptures  are  a  rule  provided  by  fovereign  grace  for  fallen 
man,  and  by  infinite  wifdom  are  adjufted  to  God's  great  defign  of 
recovering  man  to  the  praife  of  his  own  grace,  in  fuch  a  way  as 
m2iyjlain  the  pride  of  all  glory.  They  are  fufficient  as  an  out- 
ward mean,  and  do  effectually  conduct  man  to  that  happinefsde- 
figned  for  him,  under  the  influence  of  the  afTifting  grace  provided 
for  him,  and  in  the  ufe  of  the  means  of  God's  appointment.  , 
They  provide  a  relief  againfi:  any  unavoidable  defe6is  in  his  obe- 
dience, and  dirc£l  to  the  proper  grounds  of  his  acceptance  in  it : 
But  men  who  pretend  nature's  light  is  able  to  guide  to  happinefs, 
are  obliged  to  ihew  that  it  affords  us  a  rule  of  duty  ;  which  of 
itfelf,  without  the  help  of  any  fupernatural  aiTiflance,  either  as 
to  outward  means  or  inward  influences,  may  be  able  to  lead  man 
to  the  obedience  required  ;  and  this  obedience  muft  be  fuch,  as  an- 
fwers  our  original  obligation,  and  upon  account  of  its  own  worth, 
is  able  to  fupport,  not  only  a  hope  of  aceptance  but  of  future, 
nay  eternal  rewards.  For  fuch  as  are  left  to  nature's  light,  can 
neither  pretend  to  any  fuch  outward  means,  nor  inward  aflifiance, 
nor  any  /uch  relief  againfi:  defc£ls  in  knowledge  or  pra6\ice, 
as  the  fcriptures  do  furniih  us  with.  Nature's  light  lays  no 
other  foundation  for  hopes  of  acceptance  or  reward,  fare  only 
the  worth  or  perfection  of  the  obedience  itfelf.  And  this,  if  it 
is  duly  confidered,  not  only  repels  the  pretended  retortion,  but 
gives  additional  force  to  the  foregoing  argument. 

CHAP.       VIII. 

Proving  the  Infuffciency   of  Natural  Religion  from  its  DejeBs 
as  to  fufficient  Motives  for  enforcing  Obedience. 

TT  is  warmly  difputed  in  the  fchcols,  whether  revardsDnd 
-*-  puniflirnents  be  not  {o  much  of  the  ejfence  of  a  law,  and  fo  in- 
cluded  in  its   notion,  that   nothing   can  properly  be  (iilcd  kw 

which 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      139 

which  wants  them  ?  I  defign  not  to  make  myfelf  a  party  in  thofe 
difputes.  But  this  much  is  certain,  that  laws  and  government 
are  relatives ;  they  mutually  infer  and  remove  each  other. 
There  is  no  government  properly  fo  called,  that  wants  laws,  or 
fomewhat  that  is  the  meafurcand  ftandard  of  its  adminiftration. 
And  there  arc  no  laws  where  there  is  no  authority  and  govern- 
ment to  enjoin  them.  Whence  this  plainly  refults,  fhat  obedi- 
ence, if  it  does  no  more,  yet  it  certainly  entitles  to  the  protec- 
tion of  the  government*  And  difobedience,  not  only  deprives 
of  any  title  to  that,  but  lays  open  to  fuch  further  feverities,  as 
the  government  fliall  have  power  to  execute  and  fee  meet  to  ule 
for  its  own  prefervation,  againfi:  violaters  of  its  conflitutions. 
But  further,  to  wave  this  difpute,  the  nature  of  man,  which 
proceeds  not  to  a6\ions  fave  upon  knowledge,  makes  this  much 
certain,  That  whatever  he  may  be  fuppofed  to  be  obliged  to  in 
flridl  duty,  yet  really  in  fa6l,  he  ufes  not  to  pay  any  great  re- 
gard to  laws  which  are  not  enforced  by  motives  or  inducements, 
that  may  be  fuppofed  to  work  with  him,  as  containing  difcove- 
ries  of  fuch  advantages  attending  obedience,  and  difadvantages 
following  difobedience,  as  may  powerfully  fway  him  to  coniult 
his  duty  as  well  his  intereft,  by  yielding  obedience.  If  then 
natural  religion  is  found  unable  to  difcover  thofe  things  which 
ordinarily  prevail  with  man  to  obey,  and  carry  him  over  any 
obftrudtions  v/hich  lie  in  the  way,  it  can  never  be  fuppofed  fuffi- 
cient  to  lead  man  to  happinefs  :  For  man  is  not  to  be  driven, 
but  led  ;  he  is  not  to  be  led  blind-folded,  but  upon  rational 
views  of  duty  and  intereft.  That  natural  religion  is  in  this  ref- 
pe6l  exceedingly  defedive^  is  the  defign  of  this  difcourfe  to  de- 
monfirate.  Ail  thofe  motives,  which  ufually  have  any  influ- 
ence, may,    I   think,  be   brought    under    the  following  heads. 

1.  A  full  vie'.y  of  the  authority  of  the  lawgiver  and  his  laws. 

2.  A  profpe6f  of  prefent  benefit  by  obedience.  3.  A  profpect  of 
future  rewards  for  it.  4.  Fear  of  puniQiment  in  cafe  of  diiobedi- 
ence.  And  5.  Examples.  Now,  as  I  know  no  motive  which  may 
not  eafily  witiiout  ftretch  be  refoiv^d  into  one  of  thofe,  fo,  if  f 
make  it  appear  that  nature's  light  is  lame  as  to  each  of  them,, I 
think  I  have  gone  a  great  way  to  difprove  its  fufficiency  to  hap- 
pinefs.    Well,  let  us  elTay  it. 

I,  The  great  inducement  to  obedienc-e  is  <2  t/c^^r  difcovery  of 
the  authority  of  the  lazvgiver,  and  laws  thence  refuiting.  This 
is  not  perhaps,  properly  fpeaking,  a  motive,  as  it  i.i  oft  ufed  : 
for  in  very  deel  th's  is  the  lorrnal  reafon  of  cbc.Hjnce  ;  a  regar-:! 

'Alisreto 


I40  AN   INQUIRY  INTO   THE    chap.  viii. 

whereto  gives  any  a6lion  the  denomination  of  obedience,  and 
entitles  to  the  law's  protc(5\ion,  and  other  advantages  ;  yet  cer- 
tain it  is,  that  thisfhould  have  the  principal  influence,  from  the 
grouiid  jurt  now  laid  down,  and  therefore  v/e  (hall  here  fpeak  of 
it.  Jt  will  prevail  far  with  man  to  obey  the  law  of  nature,  if 
nature's  light  clearly  dlfcovers  how  much  the  lawgiver  defervcs 
that  place  ;  how  well  he  is  qualified  for  it ;  how  indifputablc 
his  title  to  the  government  is,  and  how  far  he  has  interpofed  his 
authority  ;  that  the  ftamp  of  it  is  on  thefe  laws,  to  which  wc 
arc  urged  to  be  fubje6t  ;  that  they  bear  a  plain  congruity  to  his 
fublime  qualifications ;  that  he  is  concerned  to  have  them  obey- 
ed ;  obferves  the  entertainment  they  meet  with  ;  entertains  a 
refped  for  the  obedient,  and  refents  difobedience.  If  we  arc 
left  in  the  dark,  as  to  all  or  mod  of  thefe,  it  will  exceedingly 
weaken  our  regard  to  the  law.  And  that  this  is  plainly  the  cafe, 
is  now  to  be  made  appear,  i.  It  goes  a  great  way  toward  the 
recommendation  of  any  law  to  be  fully  fatisfied  as  to  the  quali- 
fications of  the  framer.  But  how  dark  is  nature's  light  here  ? 
It  dlfcovers  indeed  his  power  and  greatnefs  :  But  its  notions  of 
his  wifdom,  juftice,  clemency  and  goodnefs  are  exceedingly 
darkened,  by  the  fecmingly  unequal  diftrlbutions  of  things  here 
below,  the  innumerable  miferies,  under  which  the  v/orld 
groans,  and  other  things  of  a  like  nature  ;  that  truly  very  {qv/ 
if  left  merely  to  its  conduct,  would  reach  any  fucli  difcovcrics 
of  thofe  glorious  properties,  as  would  influence  any  confiderablc 
regard  to  thofe  laws  he  is  fuppofed  to  make. 

I  difpute  not  now  what  may  be  iiri^tly  known  and  demon- 
ftrated  of  God,  by  a  train  of  fubtle  arguments.  For  1  would 
not  he  underflood  fo  much  as  to  infinuate  the  want  of  objeBiv: 
ezjidences  of  the  wifdom  and  goodnefs  of  tht  Deity »  Our  quef- 
tion  refpecis  not  fo  much  thefe,  as  mans  power  of  difccrning 
them.  It  is  not  abfolutely  denied,  that  there  arc  many  and 
pregnant  evidences  of  ihefe  attributes  in  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence  ;  our  quefiion  is  only,  Whether  there  is  fuch 
evidence  of  thofe  perfections,  cfpecially  in  God's  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  every  where  appearing,  as  may  be  able 
cfFe^^ually  to  influence  the  practice,  and  aifec^  the  mind  of  man 
in  his  prcfcnt  flate,  notwithflanding  of  any  obRructions  arifing, 
cither  from  (he  inward  weaknefs  of  his  faculties,  or  the  works 
of  God  from  without,  which  to  the  darkened  mind  of  man 
may  have  a  contrary  appearance  ?  And  that  which  I  contend 
is,  That  fuch  is  the  flatc  cf  thicgs,  fo  they  go  in  the  world,  and 

fo 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      141 

fo  blind  are  men's  eyes,  that  there  is  not  fo  near  and  clear  evi- 
dence of  thefe    things,  in   what   is  difcernible  by  the  moft  of 
men,  as  may  ftrike  flrongly,  atteiSt  powerfully,  and  have  a  live- 
ly influence  to  quicken  to  pra6lice.     If  our  governor  is  near,  if 
he  is  daily  converfant  with  us,  if  we  have  daily  indifputed  evi- 
dences of  his  goodnefs,  wifdom,   juOice,  clemency,  and  other 
qualifications   fitting  for  government,  without  any  a6tions  that 
may  feem  to  be  capable    of  a  contrary  conftru^^ion,  or  even  of  a 
dubious  one,  this  enforces   a  regard  to  his  commands.     On  the 
contrary,  if  he  is  little  known,   if  his  way  of  management  is 
hid  from   us,  if  there  are  inflances,  which  however  poffibly  they 
may    be  juft,  yet  have  a  contrary  appearence  to  us,  this  weak- 
ens regard  and   quite  confounds.     And  this  is   plainly  the  cafe 
as  to  God,  with  men  left  to  the  mere  condudi  of  nature's  light, 
not  through  any  defect  on  God's  part,  but  through  the  darknefs 
of  the  mind  of  man   in   his  prefent  flate  ;  and  this  is  the  more 
confidcrable,    that  we  ufc  to  be  more  tenfible  of  what  evil  any 
is  fuppofed  to  do  us,  than   of  what  good  we  may  receive  from 
them.     Now  fince  this  obfcrvation  is  of  life  to  prevent  mifiakes, 
1  defirc  it  may  be  carried  along  through  the  reft  of  our  remarks. 
2.  It   works   powerfully,  and  ftrongly   excites  to  obedience,  if 
the    indifputablenefs  of  the  lawgiver's  title,    and   the  grounds 
whereon  it  leans   are  clearly  known.     Now   as  to  God,  the 
grounds  of  his  title  to  the  legiflative  as  well  as  executive  power, 
are  the  fuper-cminent  excellency  of  his  nature,  rendering  him 
not  only  fit,  but  the  only  fit  perfon  for  it  ;   his  creation  of  all 
things,  and  thence  refuJting,  propriety  in  them  as  his  creatures, 
fuch  as  his  prefcrvation  of  them  in   being,  his  providential  care 
and  infpe^tion,  and  the  many  benefits  he  befiows  on  them.   But 
we  have  heard  already,  how  dim  the  difcoveries  of  God's  fuper- 
cminent  excellencies  are,  which  the  light  of  nature  affords.   As 
to   his   creation,  it  was  difputcd   among  the   learned  and  quite 
overlooked  by  the  vulgar,  amongft  thofe  who  were  left  to  na- 
ture's light,  as  baron  Herbert  well  obfcrvcs  and  clears.     As  (o 
hisclofc  influence  in  their  prefervatioc,  it  could  not  be  noticed 
or  known,  where  the  other  was  overlooked.     His  providential 
care  and  infpe6iion,  which   perhaps,  as  to  its  power  of  influ- 
encing, would  go  the   greateft  length,  if  it  can  be  proven  by 
the  light  of  nature  ;    yet  cannot  certainly  by   it  be  explained, 
and  truly  is  fo  darkened  by  many  obvious  occurrences  in  the  ex- 
ternal adminiftration  of  the  world,  that  paft  all  pcradvcnture,  it 
can  never  fuitably  aficdl  men,  who  have  no  other  difcoveries  of 

it. 


142  AN    INQUIRY   IxXTO   THE      chap.  viii. 

J*,  than  the  light  of  nature  affords.  As  to  God's  benefits, 
though  they  are  many,  yet  thc}?^  did  not  affe6l  fo  much,  becaufe 
they  were  conveyed  by  the  intervention  of  fuch  fecond  caufes  as 
did  arred,  inOead  of  helping  forward  the  (liort-fighted  minds 
of  men,  and  detained  them  in  contemplation  of  the  fervant 
who  bioaght  the  favour,  whereas  they  fhould  have  loekcd  fur~ 
ther,  to  him  who  fent  it ;  fo  they  (hould  have  done,  but  fo  they 
did  not.  Again,  fome  of  their  moil  valuable  benefits,  their 
virtues,  they  denied  God  to  be  the  author  of,  as  we  have  heard 
above  from  Seneca,  Cicero  and  Epi6letus.  And  finally,  fome 
•"^f  them  were  inclinable  to  think,  that  the  benefits  were  more 
than  countervailed  by  the  evils  we  labour  under.  Thus  were 
the  minds  of  men  darkened,  and  fo  they  had  continued,  if  we 
had  been  without  revelation,  3.  It  is  of  much  force  to  influ- 
ence obedience,  if  we  have  a  clear  and  fatisfying  difcovery  of 
his  government  in  thofe  laws  ;  that  is,  that  he  who  is  thus  qua- 
ficd  for,  and  rightfully  poffefTed  of  the  government,  has  made 
fuch  laws,  and  ftamped  his  authority  on  them.  However  great 
ideas  we  have  of  his  excellency  and  title  to  give  laws  ;  yet  this 
will  have  no  weight,  if  we  are  not  clearly  fatisfied  that  thefe  are 
/z2i  laws.  Now  how  palpably  dcfe6live  nature's  light  is  here,  has 
been  fully  made  out  in  the  laft  chapter.  4.  It  will  have  no 
imall  force,  if  we  had  a  clear  knowledge,  that  thefe  laws  are 
in  their  matter  fully  congruous  to  the  qualifications  we  defire  in 
a  lawgiver,  fuch  as  wifdom,  goodnefs,  jnftlce,  clemency,  and 
the  like.  But  as  thefe  attributes  are  either  not  known  or  darkly 
known  by  the  light  of  nature  ;  fo  the  imprefs  of  them  on  the 
laws  of  nature  has  not  been  difcovered,  nor  is  it  difcoverable  : 
for  I  doubt  not  but  it  might  eafily  be  made  appear,  that  the 
whole  frame  of  the  laws  of  nature  are  adapted  to  the  nature  cf 
man  as  innocent,  and  indued  with  fuflicient  power  to  continue 
lb,  which  is  not  the  cafe  wilh  him  now.  And  therefore  how  to 
reconcile  thefe  laws  to  the-  notions  of  God  and  man  is  a  fpecu- 
lation,  as  of  the  laft  confcquencc,  fo  of  the  greateft  difficulty, 
wiiich  had  never  been  got  through,  if  God  had  not  vouchfafed 
\-\^  another  guide  than  nature's  light.  5.  If  the  lawgiver  is  cei- 
tainly  known  to  have  a  great  regard  to  his  laws,  and  to  lake 
careful  inipeiHiion  of  the  obfervation  of  them  ;  this  will  be  a 
llrong  inducement  to  regard  tliem.  Rut  liere  nature's  light  is 
no  iefs  dark,  than  as  to  the  reft.  The  whole  face  of  things  in 
the  world  Teem  to  have  fo  contrary  an  afpei^^,  that  we  could  ne- 
ver it<i  clearly   through   this   matter,  if,  without  revelation,  we 

were  * 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       143 

were  left  to  judge  of  God  by  the  mere  light  of  nature.  The 
abounding  of  fin,  profperity  of  finners,  fufferings  of  the  beft, 
and  the  like,  led  fonr.eto  deny  God's  providence  and  government 
entirely  ;  others  of  the  better  fort  doubted  of  it,  as  Claudian 
elegantly  reprefents  his  own  eafe,  lib.  i.  contra  Rufinum. 

Sape  mihi  duhiam  traxit  fententia  menteniy 
Curarent  fuperi  terras^  an  ullus  inejjet 
Re^or  y  incerto  fluereyit  mart  alia  caftt. 
Nam  cum  dijpojiti  quajtjjemf^dera  muftdU 
F reef criptof que  mar i fine h  annifque  meatus y 
Et  iifcisy    notijque  'vices  :   Tunc  omnia  rebar 

Confilis  firmata  Dei ■ 

Sed  cum  res  hominum  tanta  caligine  njoln^i 
Adfpiceremy  l<£tof(^ue  diu  florere  nocentes, 
Vexarique  pios  :   Rurfus  lahefaBa  cadehat 
Religio  caujfceque  'viam  vonjpontefequehar 
AlteriuSi  'vacuo  qu^e  currere  femina  motu 
Affirmat  magnumque  ncvas  per  inane figufas 
Fortuna,  non  arte,   regi:    qu<^  numina  fenfji 
Amhiguo  'vel  nulla  putaty  'uel  nefcia  nojirij*' 

I  know  that  Claudian  got  over  this  by  Rufinus's  death,  but 
fuch  providences  have  not  always  the  like  ilTue,  and  I  only 
adduce  his  words  as  a  lively  reprefentation  of  the  ftraif.  Yea, 
to  fo  great  a  height  came  thefe  doubts,  that  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  many  were  carried  to  the  worfl  fide.  It  is  certain  the 
beft  of  them  were  fo  confounded  with  thofe  occurrences, 
that  they  could    not  fpare  refledions  full  of  blafphemy    upon 

Providence, 

*  "  I  had  often  my  mind  diftrafted  with  doubt,  whether  the  gods 
took  care  of  the  world,  or  whether  there  was  no  governor  in  it,  and 
the  affairs  of  mortals  fluduated  under  uncertain  chance.  For  when  i 
had  enquired  into  the  laws  of  the  world,  as  difpofed  into  order,  and 
the  bounds  that  are  prefcribed  to  the  fea,  and  the  courie  of  the  yerr 
and  the  fucceflion  of  day  and  night,  then  I  thought  that  theie  things 
were  eftablifhed  by  the  wifdom  of  Gcd.  But  again  when  1  faw  fhat 
the  affairs  of  men  were  involved  in  fo  great  darknefs,  that  the  wicked 
f^oiuilhed  in  joy  for  a  long  time,  and  that  the  godly  were  harrafTed, 
Religion  being  weakened,  expired,  and  I  againft  my  will  followed  the 
trafl  of  another  opinion,  which  fuppofed  that  the  feeds  of  things  have 
a  blind  motion,  and  that  new  form*  of  things  are  directed  through  aa 
immcnfe  void,  by  chance,  and  not  by  art,  and  which  fuppofes  that  the 
deities  have  cither  an  ambiguous  fcnfe  or  none  at  all,  and  chat  they 
know  nothing  of  us.'* 


144  ANINQ^UIRY  INTO   THE      chap.  vni. 

Providence,  The  famed  Cato's  lad  words  may  fcarccly  be  ck- 
cufed  for  this  crime.  Finally,  it  is  certain,  that  iherc  was 
fo  much  darknefs  about  this  matter,  that  Hone  of  them  all  paid  a 
due  regard  to  God. 

1  (hall  now  leave  this  head,  after  I  haveobferved  one  or  two 
things  ;  and  the  firft  of  them  is,  That  however  fomc  of  tlicfc 
truths  above  mentioned  may  pofTibly  be  made  out  by  a  train 
of  fubtle  arguments ;  yet  fuch  arguments,  however  they 
may  draw  an  affent  from  a  thini^.ing  man,  not  only  tranfcend 
the  capacity  of  the  vulgar,  but  fall  of  exciting  and  affed^ing 
even  the  moft  philofophicai  heads.  For  to  draw  forth  our 
a6llve  powers  into  a6lion,  the  inducements  muft  (bine  with  a 
light;  that  m.ay  warm  the  mind  as  it  were,  not  only  diflipat- 
ing  doubts  about  the  reality  of  what  it  obferved,  but  alfo 
lhewi»g  its  excellency.  Upon  this  occafion  1  may  not  im- 
pertinently apply  to  the  philofophers>  what  Plautius  fays  of 
comic  poets, 

SpeBa-'vi  ego  priiem  ccmicos  ad  ijitim  modum 
Sapienter  dida  dicere,    (itqne  illis  plaudier 
Cum    illos  fapienUs    mores  mo7rJirabant  populo  : 
Sed  cum  inde  faum  quifque    ihant    dvverji  domumj 
Nulus  erat  ilia  pa^oy    ut  illi  jujferunt** 

**  I  have  often  feen,  that  after  the  comic  poets  have  fald 
**  good  things,  and  that  they  have  been  applauded  for  them 
**  while  they  taught  good  manners  to  the  people,  as  foon  as  they 
**  were  got  home,  no  body  was  the  better  for  their  advice." 
The  other  thing  I  obferve,  is,  that  any  defeat  as  to  the  know- 
ledge of  the  lawgiver  is  fo  much  the  more  confiderable  than 
any  other,  that  a  regard  to  the  lawgiver  is  that  which  gives  the 
formality  of  obedience  to  any  a6Uon,  and  therefore  the  Icfs 
knowledge  there  is  of  him,  the  lefs  of  obedience,  properly  (o 
called,  there  will  be.  Thus  far  we  have  cleared  how  little 
nature's  light  can  do  for  enforcing  obedience  from  the  difcovc- 
rits  it  makes  of  the  lawgiver. 

2,  A  fecond  head  of  motives  to  duty  is  prefsnt  advantage. 
Now  if  nature's  light  is  able  to  prove,  that  obedience  to  the 
law  of  nature  is  like  to  turn  to  our  prefent  advantage,  cither 

a» 

*  Lc  Clerk  Parrhofianay  page  52. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS. 


■i.i 


as  to  proHt  or  pleafure,  this  would  be  of  weight:  But  it  i^ 
needlefs  to  infili  on  this  head  ;  for  v.'ho  fees  not,  that  there 
is  but  iittle  to  be  fald  as  to  many  duties  here?  Are  fhey  not 
to  crofs  our  prefent  inclinations?  And  for  any  thing  that  na- 
ture's light  can  ditcover,  diametrically  opponte  to  our  prelent 
Jntereit  and  honour;  I  mean  according  to  the  notions  general- 
ly entertained  of  thofe  things  in  the  world?  So  it  is  but  little 
that  it  can  fay  upon  this  head.  How  often  are  we  fo  fitu- 
atedl,  that  in  appearance  notiiing  ftands  in  our  way  to  pleafure, 
honour  or  profit,  but  only  the  command?  It  were  eafy  to  en- 
large on  this  head;  but  fmce  it  will  not  be  readily  controverted 
I  wave  it.  And  indeed  it  were  of  no  conGderation,  if  prefent 
lodes  were  othenvife  compenfated  by  future   advantsges, 

3.  If  nature's  light  can  give  a  full  view  of  frUurd  rewardi, 
then  this  will  compenfate  prcient  dil'ad vantages,  and  be  a 
llrong  inducement  to  obedience.  But  the  difcovery,  if  it  19 
of  any  ufe,  muil;  be  clear  and  lively,  that  it  may  afpeti  **nd 
excite,  as  has  been  above  obferved.  Well,  what  can  nature's 
light  do  here?  Very  little,  as  has  been  above  fully  demon- 
ftrated,  when  we  difcourfed  of  the  chit f  end.  It  remains  only 
now  that  we  obferve  that  evils  and  difadvantages  difcouragino; 
from  duty  are  prefent,  fenlible,  great,  and  fo  atfeiSt  fironglv:  "^ 
wherefore  if  future  rewards  have  not  fomewhat  to  balance 
thefe,  they  cannot  have  much  influence.  Now  it  has  been 
made  fufficlently  evident,  that  all  Vvdilch  nature's  light  has  to 
to  put  in  the  balance,  to  encourage  the  mind  to  go  an  in  d-;fy, 
agalnfl  prefent,  fenfible,  certain  and  great  difcouragemcnts, 
is  at  mofl,  but  a  dark,  conjectural  difcovery  of  rewards,  or 
rather  fufpicion  about  them,  af:er  time,  without  telling  u» 
what  they  are,  or  wherein  they  do  confiH:.  Will  tiiis  ever 
prevail  with  men  to  obey?  No  if.  cannot.  The  profpect  of 
future  rewards  was  not  that  which  prevailed  witli  the  mon. 
moral  amongfl;  the  heathens  of  old.  Th.eir  knovvieJoe  of 
thefe  things,  if  they  had  any,  was  of  little  or  no  ufe  or  in- 
fluence to  them,   as  their   excitement  to    virtue. 

4.  Nature's  light  is  no  lefs  defective  as  to  xhz  difco-erv  of 
puniPii'nents:  For  however  the  forebodings  ofKuiUv  coniclcnccs, 
a  dark  tradition  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation, 
and  ibme  exemplary  inflances  of  divine  feveiity,  hav^  kept 
fome  impreffions  of  punllliments  on  the  mind's  of  many  in 
ail  ages;  yet  it  is  well  known,  that  thofe  things  were  ridi- 
culed   by  moft    of   the    philofophers,  the    poet's   fictions  rnads 

S  iheai 


146  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE       chap.  viii. 

them  corxtemptible,  and  the  daily  inftances  of  impunity  of 
finners  here,  weakened  the  impreffions.  Befides,  evils  that 
follow  duty,  and  loires  luRained,  are  fenfible,  prefent,  cer- 
tain, known,  and  fo  affecl  flrongly,  and  therefore  are  not 
to  be  balanced  by  punilliments,  which  are  not,  or  rather,  at 
leaft,  are  rarely  executed  in  time,  and  whereof  there  is  little 
diflinil  evidence  after  time.  For  be  it  granted  that  the  jufticc 
and  holinefs  of  God  render  it  incredible  that  fo  many  tranf- 
greilors  as  efcane  unpuniflicd  here,  fhould  get  off  fo  ;  yet  cer- 
tain it  is,  that  nature's  ligiit  can  noway  inform  what  punifh- 
ment   (hall  be  infli6ied. 

5.  Nature's  light  can  never  point  ns  to  exa??iples  vjh'ich  m2iy 
have  any  inliuence.  There  are  but  few  of  thofe  who  wanted 
revelation,  even  of  the  philofophers,  who  were  not  tainted  with 
grofs  vices.  We  have  (Irange  ilories  told  of  a  Socrates;  and 
yet  after  all,  he  was  but  a  forry  example  of  virtue.  He  is  fre- 
quently by  Plato  introduced  fu'earing.  He  is  known  to  have 
balely  complyed  with  the  way  of  worfnip  followed  by  his  own 
country,  which  was  the  more  impious,  that  it  is  to  be  fuppo- 
fed  to  be  againfl  the  perfuafion  of  his  confcience  ;  yea  we  find 
him  with  his  lafl  breath,  ordering  his  friend  to  facrifice  the 
cock  he  had  vowed  to  Efculpaius.  M.  Dacier's  apology  for 
him  is  perfectly  impertinent.  He  is  accufed  of  impure  amours 
with  Aicibiades,  and  of  proRituting  his  wife's  chaftity  for 
gain.  It  is  evident  that  in  the  whole  of  his  condu6t,  he  (liews 
but  little  regard  to  God.  Such  are  the  examples  we  are  to  ex- 
pcdl  here.  We  might  give  full  as  bad  account  of  the  famed 
Seneca,  were  it  neceiTary  to  infift  on  this  head  not  to  mention 
others   of  lefs  confideration. 

Now  to  conclude,  how  fhall  we  by  nature's  light  be  pre- 
vailed on  to  obey,  while  it  gives  fo  unfatisfying  difcoveries  of 
the  law  and  lawgiver  ?  Can  Ihew  fo  little  of  prefent  or  future 
advantage  by  obedience,  cr  difadvantagc  by  difobedience? 
Nor  can    it   offer    any   examples  that  are  worth  follovving. 

It  is  certain  that  the  experience  of  the  world  juftifies  this 
account.  VVMiat  means  it,  that  inflances  of  any  thing  like 
virtue  arc  fo  rare  where  revelation  obtains  not?  Sure  it  mud 
i'ay  one  of  two,  if  not  both;  that  either  nature's  light  prefent 
no  in duce?7ie nts  fuificicnt  to  \ni\ucnce  pral'hcef  or  that  man  is 
dreadfully  corrupt  I  The  deifts  may  chufe  which,  or  both, 
and   let    them  avoid    the  confequences    if  they    can. 

It  had  been  cafy  to  have  laid  a  great  deal  more  on  this  head, 

Ihe 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  IMODERN  DEISTS.     147 

The  fubjea  would  have  admitted  of  confiderable  enlargement; 
but  this  iny  defign  will  not  allow.  I  intend  to  keep  ciofe  to 
the  argument,  and  run  out  no  further  than  is  of  neceffity 
for  clearing  the  force  of  that.  And  where  tlic  cafe  is  plain, 
as  I  take  it  to  be  here,  I  content  inyfelf  with  touching  at  the 
heads  which   clear  the  truth  under  debate. 


C  H  A  P.       IX. 

Shewing  the  Importance  of  knowing  theOrigin  of  Sin  to  iht  toerld, 
and  the  DefeBivenefs  of  Nature's  Light  as  to  this, 

JT  is  not  more  clear  that  the  fun  (hines,  than  that  the  whole 
world  lies  in  wickednsfi.  The  creation  groans  under  the 
weight  of  this  unweildy  load,  which  lies  lb  heavy  upon  it, 
that  it  is  the  wonder  of  all  who  have  any  right  notions  of  the 
jiiftice  or  holinefs  of  God,  that  it  is  not  funk  into  nothing, 
or  exquifite  niifery  before  now.  Tl:e  Heathens  made  bitter 
complaints  of  it.  And  indeed  if  their  complaints  had  been 
left  upon  themfelves,  and  had  not  been  turned  into  accufations 
of  the  holy  God,  none  could  have  wondered  at  them,  or  con- 
demned them.  For  it  is  manifefl  to  any  one  who  will  not 
Hop  his  ears,  put  out  his  eyes,  flifle  his  confcience,  forfwear 
and  abandon  his  reafon,  that  thi  world  is  full  offn,  what  nati- 
on or  place  is  free  of  idolatries,  blafphemies,  the  raging  of 
pride,  revenge,  perjuries,  rape:,  adulteries,  thefts,  robberies, 
murdeis,  and  other  abominable  evils  innumerable?  And  who 
fees  not,  that  all  thefe  are  the  effecls  of  ftrong,  prevailing, 
imiverfal  and  contagious  corruptions  and  depraved  inclinations; 
from  a  il^are  of  which,  no  man  can  jufily  pretend  l/imfelf  free? 
And  if  he  (hould,  any  one  v.'ho  llriflly  cbferves  his  way,  may 
eafily  implead  him,  either  of   grofs  ignorance  or  difingenuitv. 

To  know  how  tilings  came  to  this  pafs  with  the  Vv^orld,  and 
trace  this  evil  to  its  fountain,  is  a  bufmefs  of  great  importance 
to  religion.  Yea,  of  fo  much  moment  is  it,  that  one  can 
icarcely  tell  how  any  thing  like  religion  is  to  be  maintained 
in  the  world,    without   fome,  competent   knowledge    of  it, 

I.  It  this  is  not  known,  we  can  never  make  any  right 
fTtimate  of  the  evil  of  fn.  If  men  were  by  their  original  con- 
llitutlon,  without  their  own  fault,  made  of  fo  wicked  or  in- 
hrm  3  nature,  as  that  either  they  were  inclined  to  it,  or  una- 
ble 


14^  a::  IXQIIRY   I A  TO  THE        chap.  ix. 

ble  to  refill  temptations,  aniongO:  the  throng  of  v.'hich  they 
Mere  pieced,  it  is  impolTible  lor  them  to  Jook  upon  lin  as  lo 
detellable  an  evil  as  rcaiiy  it  is;  or  blame  tbenlelvcs  lo  much 
for  it,  as  yet  they  are  bound  to  do.  If  it  is  quite  otherwile, 
i.rid  ii)2u  was  orignally  upright,  and  fell  not  into  this  cafe, 
but  by  a  fault  juftly  chargeable  on  him,  it  is  certain,  that 
cu'te  ether  apprchenfions  of  lin  fhould  be  maintained.  Now 
Ji^ch  as  men's  apprehctifions  are  about  the  evil  of  (in,  fuch 
vviil  their  care  be  to  avoid  it,  prevent  it,  or  get  it  removed. 
/\nd  who  fees  not,  that  the  whole  of  religion  is  eahly  redu- 
cible to  thefc    things? 

2.  If  the  cri'iin  of  ftii  is  not  underflood,  man  can  never 
iiridcifiancl  what  he  is  obliged  to  in  the  uay  of  duty.  If 
ve  devivc  this  ueaknefs,  wickcdnels  and  depiavcd  inclination 
troni  our  hrlt  conliitulion,  we  can  never  lock  on  ourielves 
i!s  obliged  to  fuch  an  obedience,  as  the  rectitude,  holmefs, 
and.  purity  of  the  divine  nature,  iecms  to  render  neceflary. 
Aiidi  if  we  arc  uncertain  as  to  this,  we  (hall  never  knew 
};o\v  far  our  duty  extends.  And  if  v\  e  know  not  what  is  re- 
CLiircd  of  us,  how  can  we  do  it?  To  fay  we  are  bound  to 
cbey  as  far  as  we  can,  is  to  fpeak  nonfenfc,  and  what  no 
v.ay  hitishes  the  diHiculty  :  For  this  leaves  us  to  judge  of  our 
own  power,  opens  a  door  to  maa  to  interpret  the  law  as  he 
picafcs,  arid  charges  God  with  fuch  folly  in  the  frame  of  the 
law,  a^  we   dare    fcarcely  charge  on  any   human  lawgiver. 

3.  VViihout  the  knowledge  of  the  origin  oj Jin,  we  can 
never  know  what  m.eafures  to  take,  in  fubduing  our  corrupt 
ir.chnatzojis*  If  we  know  not  of  what  nature  they  are,  liow 
they  come  to  be  interwoven  with  our  frame,  and  fo  m.uch  of  a 
j:i<^ce  v.ith  ourfeives,  we  {hail  not  know  w  here  to  begin  at- 
tempts lor  leforuiation,  cr  if  it  be  piaciicabJe  to  eradicate 
ihen..  And  yet  this  mull  be  done,  otliervviic  we  cannot  m  ith 
^'ay  fliew  of  reafon  project  happinels.  But  the  life  of  corrup- 
tion being  ^^id,  we  Ihali  neither  know  wliat  it  is  to  be  removed 
or  v  here 'to  begin  our  work,  nor  liow  lar  fucccls  to  aUempts 
it  this  bind  n;ay  reafonabiy  be  hoped  for.  And  of  how 
diiliru^tivr.  confequenre   this  is   to  all  rcligicn    is  eahly  ieen. 

4.  If  the  origirt  cj  Jin  is  not  knoM-n,  we  will  be  at  a  lofs 
V  »  at  tl.oLghts  io  iSitertain  of  God's  hoUh'eJs,  J'l/Uce  and 
gooc(r,'js,  yea  and  his  wijdom  too.  ]f  our  natures  ^tx^  ori- 
ginaly  burdened  with  thole  corrupt  inclinations  fo  twiOed  in 
W'ith   them,  i.s  now  we  find  them;  or  if  we  were  fo  inhrm,    as 

not 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     149 

r^ot  to  be  able  to  refift  a  throng  of  temptations,  among  which 
we  were  placed,  we  will  icarcely  be  able  to  entertain  fuch  a 
high  regard  for  God's  holincls,  gcodnefs  and  wifdom  in  our 
make,  or  of  his  jullice  in  dealing  fo  by  us.  And  if  We  fup- 
pofe  oiherwife,  we  will  ftili  be  confounded  by  our  darknefs 
about  any  other  way  we  can  poihbiy  think  of,  whereby  things 
were  brought  to  this  pals,  and  mankind  fo  univerfally  preci- 
pitated  into   fo   miferable  a  cafe. 

5.  if  the  origin  of  evil  is  not  known,  wc  (hall  never  be 
able  to  judge  what  ejiimate  God  will  make  of  fin,  whether 
he  will  look  on  it  asy^;  evil  as  to  demerit  any  deep  refent- 
ment,    or  otherwife. 

6.  Hereon  it  follows,  that  the  whole  flatc  of  our  affairs 
with  God,  will  be  quite  darkened  and  become  unintelligible. 
We  ihall  not  know  whether  he  fhall  animadvert  fo  heavily 
on  us  for  our  fins,  as  to  ruin  us,  or  fo  flightly  pafs  over  them, 
as  not  to  call  us  to  an  account.  If  the  latter  is  fuppofed 
obedience  is  ruined;  confidering  what  man's  inclinations  and 
temptations  are:  who  will  obey,  if  no  ruin  or  hurt  is  to  be 
feared  by  fin  ?  ii  the  former  is  fuppofed,  our  hope  is  ruined* 
We  ftiall  not  know  what  value  God  will  put  on  our  obe- 
dience, if  this  is  not  known  ;  whether  he  will  not  reject  it 
for  the  finful  dcfeds  cleaving  to  it.  Kor  fhall  we  know 
whether  he  will  pardon  us,  or  upon  what  term»s,  if  we  know 
i?ot  what  thoughts  he  has  of  fin.  -And  this  we  know  not, 
rior  can  we  poflibly  underfland,  unlefs  we  know  how  it  came, 
and  came  to  be  fo  twilled  in  with  our  natures. 

Finally,  hereon  depends  any  tolerable  account  of  the  ^^t/zVy 
of  God's  proceedings^  at  leall:  of  his  gcodnefs  in  dealing  fo 
wilh  the  world,  fubjedlng  it  to  fuch  a  train  of  miferies.  If 
any  thing  of  fin  is  chargeable  juftly  upon  man's  make  and 
firlf  conftitution,  it  will  be  much  to  clear  his  juOicc,  but 
harder  to  acquit  his  goodnefs  in  plaguing  the  world  fo.  If 
oiherwife,  it  will  be  eafy  to  juftify  God:  but  how  then  were 
men  brought  to  this  cafe? 

Thus  we  have  firsortly  hinted  at  thofe  grounds  that  clear  the 
importance  of  the  cafe.  /\n  enlargement  on  them  would  have 
made  the  dullefl  underfland,  that  without  fome  fatisfying  ac- 
count of  the  oiigin  of  evil,  all  religion  is  left  loofe.  The  ju- 
dicious will  eafiiy  fee  it.  It  now  remains  that  we  make  appear 
the  infiifficiency  of  nature's  light.  To  clear  this  point,  it  is 
evident  if  we  confider, 

I.  That 


I50  AN   INQ^URY  INTO  THE        chap.  ix. 

I.  That  rr.od  of  the  wife  men  of  the  world  have  pafied  over 
thie  in  filcnce,  as  a  fpeculatlon  too  hard  and  high.     The  efFecls 
of  it  were  fo  fcnfiblc,  that  they  could  not  but   notice  them,  as 
the  Egyptians  did   the   overflowing  of  their  Nile.     But   when 
they   would  have   traced  thefe  ftreams  up  to  their  fource,  they 
were  forced  to  quit  it  as  an  unequal  chace.     The  reafon  where- 
of   is   ingcniouily,  as  well    as  folidly  given  by  the   judicious 
Dr.  Stillingfl^et,  **   The  reafon  was,  fays  he,  as  corruption  in- 
crcafed  in  the  world,  fo  the  means  of  inflruc^ion  and  know- 
ledge decayed  ;  and  fo  as  the  phenomena  grew  greater,  the 
'*  reafon  of  them  was  lefs  underdood  :     The  knowledge  of  the 
**  hiftory   of  the  firfl  ages   of  the  world,  through  which  they 
*'  could  alone  come  to  the  full  underflanding  of  the  true  caufe 
of  evil,    infenfibly   decaying    in   the   feveral  nations;   info- 
much  that  thofe  v/ho  are  not  at  all  acquainted  with  that  hiRory 
of  the  world,  which  was  preferved  in  facred  records  among 
the  Jews,  had  nothing  but  their  own  uncertain  conje61;ures  to 
goby,  and  fome  kind  of  obfcure  traditions,  which  were  pre- 
*'   ierved  among  them,  which,  while  they  fought  to  redify  by 
**   iheir  interpretations,  they  made  them  more  obfcure  and  falie 
'*   than  they  found  them.* 

2.  Others  who  would  needs  appear  more  learned,  but  were 
really  lefs  wife,  offered  accounts,  or  pretended  to  fay  fome- 
what,  rather  to  hide  their  own  ignorance,  than  explain  what 
they  Ipoke  of.  So  obfcure  are  they,  that  nothing  can  be  con- 
cluded from  what  they  fay,  but  that  they  were  ignorant,  and 
yet  fo  difingenuous  and  proud  that  they  v/culd  not  own  it. 
Among  this  fort  Plato  is  reckoned,  and  with  him  Pythagoras, 
vho  tell  us,  *'  that  the  principle  of  good  is  unity,  finity,quief- 
**  cent,  ftreight,  uneven  number,  fquare,  right  and  fplendid  ;  the 
*'  principle  of  evil,  binary,  infinite,  crooked,  even,  long  cf 
**  cne  fide,  uneqwai,  left,  obfcure. f"  Plutarch  as  is  noted 
by  Dr.  Siiilingfleet,  fays,  that  the  opinion  of  Plato  is  very  eb- 
icurc,  it  being  his  purpofe  to  conceal  it  ;  but  he  faith  in  his 
eld  age,  in  his  book  de  Legibiis,  «  ^'  ''cx.iviyi/.ij))  nlk  arvu(3o\i  Z^ 
without  any  riddle  and  allegory,  he  aiTerts  the  world  to  be 
Hioved  by  more  than  one  principle,  by  two  at  the  lead  ;  the  one 
or  a  good  and  benign  ns^iure,  the  other  contrary  to  ir,  both  in  its 

nature 

*  Or:2inesf:icrr,  lib.  3.  cnp.  3.  kCt,  8. 
t  Orioi;-n.'&.  iacra",  ibid,  fed,  11. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS. 


'^5^ 


nature  and  operations  rw  {j.ev  ocyocQapv  eivxi,    rmos  Ivxynx^  rxvr/t  y^   rx¥ 

3.  Another,  and  perhaps  the  greater  part,  did  plainly  give 
the  inofl:  abfurd  and  ridiculous,  not  to  lay  blalphemous  accounts 
of  this  matter.  Some  pretending  all  the  vltiofity  inherent 
in  matter,  which  they  fuppofed  not  created.  The  folly  as  well 
as  wickednefs  of  this  opinion,  is  well  laid  open  by  the  judici- 
ous perfon  lad  quoted.  This  was  what  Plato  aimed  at,  as 
Dr.  Stillingfleet  clears  from  Numenius,  a  famous  Syrian  Platonic 
phiiofophcr,  who  Is  thought  to  have  lived  in  the  fecond  centur}'^, 
who  giving  an  account  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato's  opinions,  fays, 
Pythagoras  a?V,  **  Exjjlente  providentia,  mala  quoque  necejjario 
*'  fubjlitijfe  propUrta  quodfylva  fit  &  tadcm  fit  malitiA  pr^dita  : 
**  Platonemquc  idem  Nuynenius  laudato  quod  duas  mundi  ani- 
*'  mas  autumet ;  unarn  htnefictntijjima7n  ;  vialig7iam  alteram  fcil-. 
**  Sylvam*  Igitur  juxta  Platonem  mundo  bona  Jua  Dei,  tan- 
**  quam  patris  liberalitate  collatafunt ;  mala  vero  matris  fylviz 
*'  vitio  cok^ferunt***'  The  plain  cafe  Is,  they  thought  God 
and  matter  eternally  co-exi(lent,  and  that  vltiofity  was  inherent 
in  matter,  and  that  God  could  not  mend  it.  To  this  purpofe 
Maximus  Tyrlus  a  Platonic  phllofopher,  who  lived  in  the  fe- 
cond century,  fpeaks,  **  That  all  the  evils  that  are  in  the 
**  world,  are  not  the  works  of  art,  but  the  afFedilons  of  mat- 
**  terf."  StnQC2i{2iySy^^  Non  pote/l  arfifax  mutare  ^nateriamX,''* 
This  way  the  Stoicks  went.  Though  they  who  have  ftudied 
them,  pretend  that  there  was  fome  difference  betwixt  Plato's 
opinion  and  theirs.  They  who  would  defire  a  more  full  ac- 
count both  of  thefe  ©pinions,  and  the  abfurdity  and  impiety  of 
them,  may  have  it  from  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  but  a  great  many  of 
the  phllofophers  plainly  maintained  two  anti-gods,  the  one  good 

and 

*  "  Although  that  there  is  a  Providence,  evils  neceffarily  exid  h\ 
"  the  world,  becaufc  matter  exlfts  in  it,  which  is  naturally  the  caufi^ 
<«  of  evil.  And  Rumcnius  commenis  Plato  who  thought  that  thcri' 
*«  were  two  fouls  of  the  world,  the  one  moil  beneficent,  and  the  other, 
"  viz.  matter,  malicious.  Therefore  according  to  Plato,  the  good  things 
"  that  are  in  the  world,  arc  conferred  on  it  as  it  were  by  the  liberality 
«'  of  its  father,  but  the  bad  things  that  are  in  ir,  originate  from  the  vi- 
*«  tlofity  of  matter,  which  is  its  mother." 

+  Max.  Ter.  Ser.   25. 

X  Seneca  de  Provid.     <•'  The  workman  cannot  change  the  nature'. 
*•'  the  matter  ou  which  he  works," 


152  AN    IN(iUlR\^   INTO    THE        chap,  ix. 

and  the  other  evil.  The  Perfians  had  their  Oromafdes,  to  whom 
they  afcribed  all  the  good,  and  Arimanius,  on  whom  they  fa- 
thered all  their  evils.  How  many  run  this  wav,  any  one  may 
learn  from  Plutarch's  difcourfe  of  Ifis  and  Ofiris,  and  judge 
whether  he  himfeJf  was  not  of  the  fame  mind.  What  was  it 
that  drove  thofe  great  men  on  fuch  wild  conceits,  which  are 
fo  abfurd  that  they  are  not  worth  confutins;  ?  Nothing  elfci 
but  their  darknefs  about  the  rife  of  fin.  And  how  difmal  were 
the  confrrquencss  of  thofe  notions  and  of  this  darknefs  ?  What 
elfe  drove  fo  great  a  part  of  the  world  to  that  madnefs,  to  worlhip 
even  the  Principle  of  evil  ?  Was  it  not  this,  that  they  enter- 
tained perverfe  notions  about  the  origin  of  evils,  both  of  fin 
and  punlQiment  ? 

4.  Not  to  infill  on  thofe  abfurd  opinions,  the  latter  accounts 
we  have  of  this  matter,  by  perfons  who  reje6l  the  fcriptures* 
after  they  have  taken  all  the  help  from  them  they  think  meet 
thousjh  they  are  more  poliihed,  are  not  one  whit  more  fatis- 
faclory.  For  clearing  this  we  Ihall  orFer  you  the  moil:  con- 
fiderable  of  this  fort  that  have  occurred  to  us.  We  fliall  begin 
with  Simpllcius  a  Phrygian  philofopher  who  lived  in  the  fifth 
century,  and  was  a  great  oppofer  of  the  fcriptures.  He  in 
his  commentary  upon  the  34th  chapter  of  Epi^Sletus,  fpeaks 
thus,  **  The  foul  of  man  is  nexus  ntriufquc  fjiundi,  in  the 
**  middle  between  thofe  more  excellent  beings,  which  remain 
*'  above  (which  he  had  taught  to  be  incapable  of  fin)  with 
**  which  it  partakes  in  the  fablimlty  of  Its  nature  and  under- 
**  ftanding,  and  thofe  inferior  terreftrlal  beings,  with  which  it 
**  communicates  through  the  vital  union  which  it  hath  with  the 
'*  body,  and  by  reafon  of  that  freedom  and  IndifFercncy  which 
**  it  hath,  it  is  fometimes  afiiTiilated  to  the  one,  fometlmes  to 
*'  the  other  of  thofe  extremes.  So  that  while  it  approacheth 
**  to  the  nature  of  the  fuperlor  beings,  it  keeps  Itfelf  free  from 
**  evil;  but  becaufe  of  its  freedom,  it  may  fometimes  fink  down 
**  into  thofe  lower  things,  and  fo  he  calls  the  caufe  of  evil 
*'  In  the  foul,  its  voluntary  defcent  into  this  lower  world,  and 
*■*  immerfing  itfelf  in  the  fcculency  of  terreflrlal  matter."  much 
more  he  ad.Js;  but  It  all  comes  to  this,  **  That  becaufe  of  the 
•*  freedom  of  the  will  of  man,  nothlufr  elfe  can  be  fald  to  be 
"  the  author  of  evil,  but  il^^  foul."  We  have  llkewife  an  ac- 
count from    the  Oracles   of  Reafon  much  to  the   fame  purpofe. 

A.  W. 

*  Comment,  in  Epift.  Cap.  34. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       153 

A.  W.  a  cleift  in  a  letter  to  Sir  Charles  Blount  anfu'ering 
an  objediion  of  Sir  Charles  Wolleley's,  againft:  the  fufficicncy 
cf  natural  religion,  gives  this  account :  **  This  generally  acicnow- 
'*  ledged  iapfe  of  nature,  that  it  came,  may  be  dilcovered  by 
*'  natural  light;  how  it  came,  is  reafonable  to  conclude  vvith- 
**  out  revelation,  namely,  by  a  deviation  from  the  right  rule  of 
**  reafon  implanted  in  us;  how  he  came  to  deviate  from  this 
**  rule,  or  kpfe,  proceeds  from  the  nature  of  goodnefs,  ori- 
**  ginally  given  us  by  our  Creator,  which  reafon  tells  us  to  be 
**  an  arbitrary  (late  of  goodnefs  only  ;  therefore  not  a  neceflary 
**  goodnefs  to  which  our  natures  were  conftrained.  In  Ihort 
**  our  fall  proceeds  from  our  not  being  able  to  reafon  lightly  on 
**  every  thing  we  a6t,  and  with  iuch  beings  we  were  created  : 
For  all  our  a6\ions  are  defigned  by  us  to  fome  good  which 
may  arife  to  us  ;  but  v/e  do  not  always  diflinguiOi  righily 
of  that  good  :  we  often  miftake  bojium  apparras  for  the 
honum  rsale,  Deapimur  fptcit  rcBi*  The  bonum  jucun- 
dum  for  want  of  right  reafoning,  is  preferred  to  the  bonum 
kontflum;  and  the  bcnum  vicinum,  though  it  be  iefs 
in  itfelf,  often  carries  it  before  the  bonum  rtmctunii  which 
**  is  greater  in  its  own  nature.  No  man  ever  held  that  we 
could  appttere  malum  qua  mulum*;  and  therefore  I  will  not 
grant  him  a  total  Iapfe  in  our  natures  from  God.  For  vi-e 
fee  many  born  v^ith  virtuous  inclinations;  and  though  all 
men  at  fometimes  err,  even  the  beO,  in  their  aflions,  it 
only  (hews  that  we  were  not  created  to  a  neceffitated  good- 
nefs. It  is  enough  to  prove  no  fatal  Iapfe,  that  many  are 
proved,  through  the  courfe  of  their  lives,  more  prone  to  do 
good  than  evij,  and  that  all  men  do  evil,  only  for  want  of 
right  reafoning  ;  becaufe  the  will  neceffarily  follows  the  lafl 
dictate  of  the  underltandingf."  The  next  and  laft  whom 
we  (hall  mention,  is  the  learned  Herbert,  whom  the  reft  do 
but  copy  after.  Thus  then  he  accounts  for  it;  **  Oi:od  adma- 
**  lum  culp^  fpcElaty  hoc  quidem  non  aliunde  provenin,  quem 
*'  ab  arbitrio  illo  omnibus    inJitOy    ingaiitoquet    quod  tanquam 

**  bonum 

*  "  An  apparent  good  for  a  real  good. — We  are  deceived  by  fhe 
"  appearance  of  reftitude. — A  pleafmg  good  is  preferred  to  an  honour- 
*«  able  good,  and  a  near  to  a  diftant  one,  but  vye  cannot  defire  evil  as 
«<  evil." 

t  Oracle^  of  Reafon,  pag,  157, 

T 


J54  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE        chap.  ijr. 

**  honuw  eximium  Bens  optinius  maximus  vobis  largitus  efl ; 
**  ex  quo  etiam  a  bdluis  fiiagis  quam  ipjo  intellcBu  dijlingui'- 
**  mur:  quum  tavicn  adeS  ancipttis  fit  naturce,  ut  in  utra??!" 
**  que  pur  tern  JleSIi  poffiff  fit  ut  in  malum  [apt  propendeat  & 
*'  dilabatur;  cater um  per  fe  ejf  hen ejiciuvi  plane  divinum,  ^i^f~ 
**  que  amplitudinis  &  pr^Jiunticr.f  ut  citra  illudf  neque  boni 
"  ejje  pojfemus:  ecquis  enim  boni  aliquid  ejicere  decitur,  niji 
**  quando  in  adverfam  partem  datur  optio?  Hinc  igitur  ma^ 
**  lum  culpa  accidtrey  quod  nobilijfnna  amma  faculfas,  in  Je- 
*'  quiorem  Jua  fponte  partem,  nulloque  cogente  traducatur  de- 
**  torqueaturiue  *. 

Thele  three  accounts,  in  feveral  rerpe£\s,  run  the  fame 
way.  It  were  eal'y  however  to  let  them  by  the  ears  in  fome 
confiderable  particulars,  and  perhaps,  to  fhew  the  inconfiflency 
of  the  feveral  authors  with  themfelves,  on  thefc  heads:  but 
this  is  net  my  defign  to  fpend  time  en  things,  whereby  truth 
will  not  gain  much  ;  as,  perhaps,  they  contain  the  turn  of  what 
reafon  can  fay  on  the  head,  fo  we  ihall  now  {hew  how  very 
far  they  are  from  fatisfying  in  the  cafe*  The  fubftance  of 
them  may  be  reduced  to  thefe   three  propofitions : 

1.  That  Man's  body  fways  the  foul,  to  which  it  is  joined,  to 
things  fuitable  to  itfelf,  which  are  evil.  This  Simplicius  more 
than  infinuates. 

2.  That  as  reafon  is  the  guide  of  the  will,  which  neceffarily 
follows  its  laft  dieiate;  fo  the  will's  inclination  to  evil  flows 
from  our  not  being  able  to  reafon  rightly.  This  the  Oracles  of 
Reafon  give  plainly  as  a  refponfe  in  the  words  now  quoted. 

3.  The  will  is  ancipitis  natura* ,  perfedlly  indifferent,  equally 

capable 

*  De  Religione  Gentilium,  Cap.  13.  pag.  164.—"  With  regard  to 
"  the  evil  of  fin,  this  arifes  from  no  other  fource  than  our  natural  frce- 
"  dom  of  will,  which  God  the  beft  and  the  greatefl  has  beRowed  oj> 
*'  us  as  a  dirtinguilhed  blefllng,  and  by  which  we  are  diflinguiOied  from 
<*  the  brutes  even  more  than  by  reafon  itfelf.  But  as  this  blefiing  is 
<*  of  fo  ambiguous  a  kind,  that  it  may  be  turned  either  v.'ay,  it  hap«< 
«*  pens  that  it  often  inclines  to  evil  and  goes  aftray.  Yet  in  itfrlf  it  is 
<<  certainlv  a  divine  blcffing,  and  of  fuch  an  extent  and  excellency, 
<*  that  without  it  we  could  not  be  good.  For  who  is  ever  paid  to  do 
<*  any  good,  unlefs  when  he  had  it  in  his  choice  to  ad  in  a  different 
«'  manner  ?  Tt^e  evil  of  fin  therefore  proceeds  from  hence,  that  the 
<«  moft  noble  faculty  of  the  foul,  of  its  own  accord,  and  without  any 
«<  one  forcing  it,  is  drawn  away  and  turned  to  the  wrong  fide." 

+  OY  a  doubtful  nature. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       155 

capable  of,  and  fvvayed  to  evil  and  good.  This  all  the  three 
concur  in.  It  is  like  a  nice  balance  which  ftands  even,  hulls 
eafily  fwayed  to  either  fide. 

But  now  it  is  eafy  to  multiply  difficulties  againft  this  ac- 
count, and  fliew  how  it  no  way  clears,  but  ratlier  involves  the 
matter  more.      And, 

I.  I  would  defire  to  know  whether  that  inferior  part,  the 
body,  or  terre'lrial  part  of  man,  call  it  which  you  will,  fways 
to  any  thing,  not  fuited  to  its  original  frame  and  perfe6lion,  or 
not  ?  If  it  aims  at  nothing,  bends  or  inclines  to  nothing,  but  what 
is  perfe6iive  of  itfelf,  I  defire  to  know  how  that  can  be  faulty? 
How  can  this  body  be  made  a  part  of  a  ccmpofition,  wherein 
it  is  faulty  for  it,  to  aim  at  what  is  truely  perfedive  of  its  nature? 
Kow  can  it  be  criminal  for  the  foul  to  aim  at  enobling  and  fatisfy- 
ing  the  capacities  of  that,  which  is  fo  nearly  united  to  itfelf?  How 
is  it  confiftent  with  the  wifdom  of  God,  to  unite  two  beings,  the 
one  whereof  cannot  reach  its  own  perfection  without  hurt  to 
the  other?  Ifitisfaid,  that  it  inclines  to  what  contributes  not 
to  its  own  perfection  ;  then  I  defire  to  know  how  it  came  to 
be  fo  depraved  as  to  have  a  tendency  to  its  own  detriment  ? 
How  was  it  confident  with  the  wifdom  of  God  to  make  it  fo  ? 
How  was  it  confiftent  with  the  goodnefs  of  God  to  affoci- 
ate  it  when  fo  made,  with  another  more  noble  being  to  which  it 
muft  prove  a  burden  ;  yea,  which  muft  fway  to  that,  which 
proves  the  ruin  of  the  whole  compolition?  And  how  can  man 
be  blamed  for  doing  that,  to  which  his  nature  inevitably  muft 
carry  him  ?  For  if  he  is  thus  compounded,  his  body,  earthly 
part,  or  lower  faculties  fway  to  evil ;  his  will  is  equally  inclin- 
able to  both  ;  and,  in  this  cafe,  how  can  the  compofition  be  o- 
therwife,  than  depraved  ?  For  my  part  I  fee  not  how  it  could 
be  otherwife  ;  or  how  God  can  juRly  punifli  it  for  being  fo,  up- 
on the  fuppofition  laid  down. 

2,  If  it  be  afferted  tliat  we  are  not,  by  our  original  conRitu- 
tion  able  to  reafon  rightly,  in  what  concerns  our  own  duty,  as 
we  have  heard  from  the  Oracles  of  Reafon  ;  then  I  defire  to 
know  if  we  are  not  neceifitated  by  our  very  make  and  conHitu- 
tiontoerr?  If  we  are  to  believe,  what  the  fame  Oracle  utters, 
that  the  will  muO  follow  neceflarily  the  underftanding;  then  I 
defire  to  know,  if  we  are  not  ^lecelTitated  to  fin?  If  things-are 
thus  and  thus,  we  muQ  either  believe  them  to  be, or  believe  that 
this  Oracle  gives  a  falfe  refponfe ;  then  I  defire  to  know  how 
God   could  make  us  neceifarilv  evil  ?  How  can  he  puniih  us  for 

it? 


156  AN   INQ^LmiY  INTO    THE        chap.  ix. 

if  ?  Can  this  be  reconciled  vvl(h  tbe  reft  of  (his  doiflrine,  ahout 
the  arbitrary  fiatc  of  man's  goodncfs?  I  might  a(k  net  a  few  o- 
ther  queries,  but  perhaps  thefe  vvi!l  fuBke. 

3.  If  the  will  be,  in  its  own  nature,  perfcclly  free  and  indifFer- 
enr,   then  I  defirc  to  know,  whether  there  is  any   thing  in  that 
compofition,  whereof  it  is  a  part,  or  to  which  it  is  joined,  or  any 
thing  in  the  circumflances  wherein  man    is   placed,   fwaying  it 
to  the  worft  fide?  If  there  is  any  thing  either  in  man's  conPiitu- 
tion  or circumftances, fwaying  him  wrong;  then  I  defire  to  know, 
13  there   any  thing  to  baJance  them?  Whether  there  is  or  is  not 
any  thing  to  keep  him  even?  I   would  dcfire  to  know  how  any 
thing  came  to  be  in  his'conftitution,  to    fway    him  wrong?  If 
there  is  any  thing  to  baL-^nce  thefc  induccm^rnts   to    fin,  or  in- 
clinations, then  inan  is  perfectly  indifferent  ftill :    and  about  this 
we  fhall    fpeak   anon,     if  there  is    a  will,  equally   capable   of 
good  and  evil,  and  tr.an  has  fomewhat  in  his  confiitution  or  cir- 
cumftances, at  leaft  fwaying  him  to  evil,  then  I  defire  to  know 
how  it  was  pofiible  for  him  to  evite  it  ?  If  he  has  nothing  deter- 
mining him  more  to  evil  than   to  good,  or  if  any  thing  that  in- 
clines toevii  is  balanced,  by  other  things   of  no  lefs  force    de- 
termining and   fwaying  him  to  good,   then  many  things  may  be 
enquired:   how  comes  it  to  pafs,  that  though  man  is  equally, in- 
clinable  to  good  or  evil,  that  alm.ofl  ail  men  choofe  evil?  Yea 
1  need  not   put  an  almoft  to  it.     It  it  a  Grange  thing  to  fuppofe 
all  men  equally  difpofed  to  good  or  evil,  and   y-t  none  choofe 
the  good. 

4.  I  do  not  know  how  this  notion  of  man's  liberty,  which  is 
cahly  granted  to  be  in  itfelf,  if  the  notion  of  it  is  rightly  dated, 
a  perfe^ion,  will  take  with  confiderate  men,  that  it  confiOs  in 
a  perfect  indifi'crency  to  good  or  evil:  for  if  this  is  a  nccflary 
perfe6\ion  of  the  rational  nature,  without  which  it  cannot  be  call- 
ed good,  as  Herbert  clearly  aiTerts,  in  his  words  above  quoted  ; 
then  I  afk,  what  il^all  become  of  thofe  natures  unalterably  good, 
of  which  Simplicius  talks?  Is  it  abfurd  to  fuppofe,  that  there 
may  be  fuch?  Are  they,  if  thev  be,  lefs  perfcc>,  bccaufe  uncapa- 
ble  of  that  which  debafes  and  depraves  them  ?  is  God  good,  who 
\us  beyond  difpute  no  fuch  liberty  as  this?  Is  an  indifi-ercncy  to 
commit  fin  or  not  to  fin,  a  great  perfedion  ?  If  it  be,  is  it  great- 
er than  not  to  be  capable  of  fmning  ?  They  may  embrace  this 
notion  of  lihertv  who  will,  and  fancy  themlelves  pcrfe61,  I  thall 
not  for  this  reckon  them  fo. 

5.  This  account  of  man  as  equally  inclined  to  good  or  evil,  is 

either 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     157 

cither  an  acount  of  man's  ca(e  as  he  now  is,  or  as  at  firft  made  : 
If  man  is  now  otherwife,  to  wit,  inclined  more  to  evil  than  good, 
how  came  he  to  be  fo  ?  This  is  the  difficulty  we  defire  to  be  fa- 
tisfied  about.  If  this  be  the  cafe  he  was  made  in,  and  ftill  con- 
tinues in,  then,  I  fay,  it  is  utterly  falfe,  and  contradictory  to  the 
cars,  eyes  and  confcience  of  all  the  world.  Who  fees  not  that 
man  is  plainly,  ftrongly,  and  I  may  add  unlverfally,  inclined 
to  evil  ?  The  wifer  heathens  have  owned  it.  And  it  is  plainly- 
made  out  againft  the  mofl  impudent  denier.  Hierocle's  words, 
as  I  find  them  tranilated  by  an  excellent  perfon,  are  memorable 
to  this  purpofe.  **  Man,  fays  he,  is  of  his  own  motion  inclined 
**  to  follow  the  evil  and  leave  the  good.  There  is  a  certain  ftrifc 
**  bred  in  his  affcLlions  ;  he  hath  a  free  will  which  he  abufeth, 
**  binding  himfelf  wholly  to  encounter  the  laws  of  God.  And 
**  this  freedom  itfelf  is  nothing  elfe,  but  a  willingnefs  to  admit 
**  that  which  is  not  good,  rather  than  otherwife*."  This  is  a 
true  ftate  of  the  matter  from  a  heathen. 

6.  The  fuppofition  of  man's  being  made  perfectly  indifferent 
is  injurious  to  God,  who  cannot  be  fuppofed,  without  reflection 
on  him,  to  have  put  man  in  fuch  a  cafe.  The  leaft  that  can  be 
faid,  preferving  the  honour  due  to  the  divine  excellencies,  is  that 
God  gave  a  law  to  man,  fuitable  to  the  re6titude  of  his  own  nature 
and  to  man's  happinefs  and  perfection  ;  that  he  endued  him  with 
an  ability  to  know  this  law,  the  obligations  he  lay  under  to 
obey  it,  and  the  inducements  that  might  have  fortified  him  in  his 
obedience  againfl  the  force  of  any  temptation  which  he  might 
meet  with.  If  this  be  not  afferted,  it  will  not  be  poilible  to 
keep  God  from  blame,  which  all  that  own  him,  are  concerned 
to  take  care  of:  for  how  could  he  bind  man  to  obey  a  law,  which 
he  did  not  make  known  to  him,  or  at  leaft  gave  him  a  power  to 
know?  If  he  laid  him  open  to  temptations,  and  made  him  in- 
capable of  difcovering  what  might  antidote  their  force,  if  he 
would  ufe  it,  what  (hall  we  think  of  his  goodnefs?  Further,  we 
muft  own  tliat  the  will  of  man  was  made  inclinable,  though  not 
not  immutably  fo,  to  its  own  perfe6lion:  how  elfe  was  it  wor- 
thy of  its  author?  Finally,  we  muft  own  that  man  had  no  affec- 
tion or  inclnation  in  him,  that  was  really  contradictory  to  that 
law  which  he  was  fubjeded  to,  and  which  tended  to  his  happi- 
nefs and  perfection.  If  this  is  denied,  then  I  afli,  were  not  thefe 
inclinations  finful?  Was  that  being  worthy  of  God,  that  had  no 

tendency 
*  Hierccles  Carmin,  Aur,  Tranfl.  Reaf.  of  Script.  Belief,  pag.  146. 


153  AN  INQUIRY    INTO    THE        chap.  ix. 

t^ndencv  to  its  own  perfef^'ion  ?  But  on  the  contrary,  what  was 
inclinable  to  its  own  ruin? 

7.  This  being  the  leaf!:,  that  can  without  manifeft  reproach  to 
the  wifdom,  goodnefs  and  juftice  of  the  Creator,  be  fuppofed 
in  favour  of  man's  original  cooftitution  ;  I  defire  to  know,  is  this 
the  cafe  ftill,  or  is  it  not  ?  If  it  is  not,  then  how  came  it  to  be 
othcrwife  ?  How  comes  man  originally  to  be  worfe  now,  than  at 
firft  ?  How  is  this  confiftent  with  the  deift's  principles,  that 
there  is  no  lapfe?  Tf  it  be  afiTerted,  we  are  in  the  fame  ftate  ftill, 
how  then  comes  all  the  world  to  be  full  of  wickednefs?  How  is 
this  reconcileable  with  the  experiences  and  confcicnces  of  men, 
that  affured  them  of  the  contrary? 

8.  If  it  is  thought  enough  to  refolve  all  this,  as  to  a<5lual  fail- 
ings, into  the  choice  of  man  ;  yet  what  fhall  we  fay  as  to  that 
darknefs  as  to  duty,  which  we  heard  the  deifts  confeffing,  in 
their  Oracles  of  Reafon  ?  How  came  that  inability  to  reafon 
rightly,  which  we  have  before  demonftrated  man  under,  and 
which  our  adverfaries  will  own  !  Again,  how  come  we  to  have 
vitious  inclinations  fo  ftrongly  rooted  in  our  natures  !  Strong  they 
are  ;  for  they  trample  upon  our  light,  the  penalties  of  laws 
divine  and  human  ,*  yea  and  the  fmartings  of  our  own  con- 
fcience.  The  drunkard  and  unclean  perfon  finds  his  health 
ruined,  and  yet  in  fpite  of  all  this,  his  inclination  makes  him 
run  on  in  the  vice  that  has  ruined  him  :  and  the  like  is  evident 
in  other  cafes  innumerable.  Deeply  rooted  they  are:  they  are 
fome  way  twilled  in  with  the  conftitutions  of  our  body,  and  no 
lefs  fixed  in  our  fouls.  So  fixed  they  are,  that,  though  our 
own  reafon  condemns  them,  it  cannot  remove  them*  Though 
fometimes  fear  reftrains  them  as  to  the  outward  a6ls ;  yet  it 
cannot  eradicate  the  inclination.  Inrtru6lion  and  all  human  en- 
deavours cannot  do  it.  A  famed  Seneca  that  underftood  fo  much, 
who  undertook  to  teach  others,  and  perhaps  has  fpoke  and  writ 
better  than  moft  of  the  heathens  ;  yet  by  all  his  knowledge  and 
all  his  endeavours,  owns  this  corruption  fo  deeply  rooted  in  him- 
felf,  that  he  expeded  not  to  get  rid  of  it.  Non  pertrni  ad  fa- 
vitiiteirif  nt  perveniam  quidem.  :  delim mentis  magis  quam  remedia 
podngrce  Tiiece  compono  contmtusjirarius  acctdit,  &  ft  minus  ter- 
viinatur*  9.  Not 

*  *«  I  am  not  come  to  a  found  flate,  nor  fhall  I  ever  arrive  at  it. 
*'  I  am  compofing  paliiitives  rather  than  remedies  for  rny  gout,  being 
'»  content  \i  it  aitacks  <ne  more  feldora,  and  proves  lefs  violent." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     159 

9#  Not  only  fo,  but  further,  hov'  come  thefe  inclinations  to 
be  born  with  us?  Grow  up  with  us?  That  they  are  fo,  is 
evident.  We  no  fooner  begin  to  a6t,  than  to  a(Si  perverfely.  Wc 
no  fooner  (hew  any  inclinations,  than  we  fhew  that  our  inclina- 
tions are  evil.  Yea,  among  Chriftians,  where  there  are  many 
virtuous  perfons,  who  give  the  beft  example,  the  beft  inftruc- 
tion,  and  ufe  the  beft  difcipline  for  the  education  of  their  chil- 
dren in  virtue ;  yet  we  fee  the  children  difcover  inclinations  {o 
ftrong,  as  are  not  to  be  reftrained  by  all  thefe  endeavours,  much 
Jefs  eradicated:  and,  fo  early  are  they  there,  that  they  cannot 
be   prevented  by  the  moft  timeous  care. 

10.  It  will  not  help  the  matter  to  tell  us,  that  there  are 
fome  born  with  virtuous  inclinations.  For  i.  If  all  are  not 
fo,  the  difficulty  remains.  How  came  thefe  to  be  born  other- 
wife,  of  whom  we  have  been  fpeaking !  How  came  their  frame 
to  be  different  from,  nay  and  worfe  than  that  of  others!  Are 
they  under  the  fame  law?  If  fo,  why  have  they  more  impe- 
diments, and  lefs  power  of  obedience?  2.  We  would  be  glad 
to  fee  the  perfons  condefcendcd  on,  that  are  void  of  vitious  in- 
clinations, that  we  might  afk  them  fome  queftions.  You  fay 
you  are  born  with  virtuous  inclinations.  Well^  but  have  you 
no  ill  inclinations?  If  you  are  no  drunkard,  adulterer,  &c.  yet 
have  you  no  inclination  to  pride,  prodigality,  negle<Sl  of  God, 
covetoufnefs,  or  fomewhat  like?  1  fear  the  man  that  can  anfwer 
plainly  in  the  negative  here,  will  not  be  eafily  found.  And 
till  wc  fee  him,  we  deny  there  is  any  fuch.  3.  To  confirm 
this,  feveral  perfons,  whom  the  world  has  looked  on  as  virtu- 
oufly  inclined  from  their  infancy,  have,  when  ferioufly  acquaint- 
ed with  Chriftianity,  owned  that  they  were  as  wickedly  in- 
clined as  others;  only  by  the  help  of  their  conftitution,  they 
were  not  fo  much  prompted  to  thofe  evils,  which  are  moft  ob- 
obferved  and  condemned  in  the  world.  And  this  account  has 
been  given  by  perfons  of  judgment,  wliofe  capacity,  nor  inge- 
nuity cannot  reafonably  be  queftioned.  Finall)^  the  ground 
whereon  A.  W.  pronounces  againft  an  univerfsl  lapfe,  viz. 
That  we  cannot  appetne  malum  qua  malumf,  is  ridiculous  : 
For  this  is  a  thing  perfed^ly  inconfiftent,  not  only  with  the  due 
exercife,  but  the  very  nature  of  our  rational  faculties:  And 
if   notwithftanding    this    impcffibility     of     any    man's    defir- 

ing;' 

+  Delire  evil  as  evlL 


i6o  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE        chap.  ix. 

ing  evil  as  evil,  fo  many  are  deeply  corrupted,  no  imagina- 
ble rcafon  can  be  alligned,  why  all  may  not  be  (o,  without 
fuppofing   that  we   can    appetere  malum   qua   malum. 

To  conclude  then,  it  is  upon  the  whole  evident,  that  reafon 
can  never  trace  this  matter  to  its  proper  lource.  Our  confcjen- 
ces  condemn  us  indeed,  and  fo  acquit  the  Deity.  But  with- 
out revelation  we  can  never  underftaiid  upon  M^hat  grounds 
we  are  condemned  by  ourfelves,  nor  how  the  Deity  is  to  be 
juftified;  and  lo  this  fentence  of  our  confciences  involves  the 
matter  more,  and  encreafes  the  difficulty.  It  is  not  from  any 
di(lln6l  view  of  the  particular  way  how  sve  come  to  be  guilty,  and 
how  God  comes  to  be  free  of  blame?  that  confcience  is  led  to  this 
fente  ice.  And  therefore,  how  to  come  to  any  fatisfa6lion  about 
the  matter,  that  may  liberate  us  from  the  inconvenicncies  above- 
mentioned,  which  are  really  fubverfive  of  all  religion,  and  can 
reafonabiy  be  fuppofed  available  to  us,  reafon  can  never  falisfy  , 
us. 

Sirce  thefe  gentlemen,  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  find  it  their 
intercft  lo  deny  any  lapfe,  I  fnaii,  to  what  has  been  faid,   add  a 
fbort,  but  judicious  and  folid  confirmation  of  this,  from  a  perfcn 
of  a  more  than  ordinary  reach,  I  mean  Dr.  How  :  who,  after  he 
has  quoted  many  teflimonles  from  Heathen  authors,  proving  this 
lapfe,  reaibns  for  it,  and  confirms  it  further  from  arguments  not 
eafily  to  beanfwered  :  His  words  run  thus,  **  If  we  confider,  can 
**  it  be  fo  much  as  imaginable  to  us,  that  the  prefent  flate  of  man 
**   is  his  primitive  Hate,  or  that   he  is  now  fuch  as  he  was  at  firfi 
**  made?  For   neither   is  it   conceivable,  that  the  bleffed  God 
**  (bould  have  made  a  creature  with  an  averfion  to  the  only  im- 
**  portant  ends,  whereof  it  is  naturally  capable  :   Or  particu- 
"   larly  that  he  created  man,  with  a  difaffe<5\ion  to  himfelf  ;  or, 
*'  that  ever  he  at  firfl,  defigned  a  being  of   fo  high  excellency, 
**  as'the   fpirit  of  man  to  trudge  fo  meanly,  and  be  fo  bafcly 
**  fervile  to  terrene  inclinations  ;   or,  fince  there  are  manifeftly 
"   powers  in  him,  of  a  fuperior  and  inferior  fort  and  order,  the 
**   meaner  (hould  have  been  by   original    infiitution   framed  to 
**  command  ;  and  the  more  noble  and  excellent,  only  to  obey 
'*  and  ferve  ;  as  every  one  that  obferves,  may  fee  the  common 
**  cafe  with  man  is. 

**  And  how  far  he  is  fvverved  from  what  he  was,  is  eafily 
*'  conje6\urable  by  comparing  him  with  the  meafures,  which 
''  ihew  what  he  fliould  be.  For  it  cannot  be  conceived  for 
**  what  end   lawi  were  ever  given  him  ;  if  at    leafi  we  allow 

**   them 


PRlNClf'LES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       i6i 

**  them  not  to  be  the  meafures  of  his  primitive  capacity,  or  de- 
**  ny  him  ever  to  have  been  in  a  poilibility  to  obey.  Could 
**  they  be  intended  for  his  government  if  conformity  to  th^m 
**  were  againft  or  above  his  nature  ?  Or  were  they  only  for 
**  his  condemnation  ?  Or  for  what,  if  he  was  never  capable  of 
*'  obeying  them?  How^  inconfiftent  were  it  with  the  goodnefs 
"  of  the  bleiTed  God,  that  the  condemnation  of  his  creatures 
**  fhould  be  the  firft  dcfign  of  his  giving  them  laws !  And  with 
**  his  juilice,  to  make  his  laws  the  rule  of  punllbment,  to  whom 
**  they  could  never  be  the  rule  of  obedience  and  duty  !  Or 
**  with  his  wifdom,  to  frame  a  fyrtem  and  body  of  laws,  that 
**  (hould  never  ferve  for  either  purpofe  !  And  fo  be  upon  tl>e 
**  whole  ufeful  for  nothing.  The  common  reafon  of  mankind 
**  teacheth  us  to  eftimate  the  wifdom  and  equity  of  lawgivers, 
**  by  the  fuitablenefs  of  their  conftitutions  to  the  genius  and 
**  temper  of  the  people  for  whom  they  arc  made  ;  and  we  com- 
**  monly  reckon  nothing  can  more  flur  and  expofe  a  govern- 
'*  ment,  than  the  impofing  of  conftitutions,  rpoft  probably  im- 
'*  practicable,  and  which  are  never  likely  to  obtain.  How 
**  much  more  incongruous  muft  it  be  efteemed  to  enjoin  fuch 
**  as  never  poffibly  could  !  Prudent  legiflators,  and  ftudious  of 
**  the  common  good,  would  be  fhy  to  impofe  upon  men,  under 
**  their  power,  againft  their  genius  and  common  ufagesf  nei- 
**  ther  eafily  alterable,  nor  to  any  advantage  ;  much  more  ab- 
**  furd  were  it,  with  great  folemnity,  and  weighty  fan6lions,  to 
*'  ena6l  ftatutes  for  brute  creatures :  and  wherein  were  it 
**  more  to  purpofe,  to  prcfcribe  unto  men  ftridl  rules  of  piety 
**  and  virtue,  than  to  bcafts  or  trees,  if  the  former  had  not 
'*  been  capable  of  obferving  them>  as  the  latter  were  not  *." 
1  believe  the  deifts  will  not  eafily  overthrow  this  nervous  dif- 
courfe. 

CHAP.      X. 

Proving  Nature's  Light  unable  to  dijcover  the  Means  of  obtain* 
ing  Pardon  of  Sin,  or  to  Jhew  that  it  is  attainable. 

THAT  all  have  finned  is  fufficiently  clear  from   the  forego- 
ing difcourfe.     That  it  is  of  importance  to  underftand  the 
rife  of  fm,  and  that  nature's  light  is  unable  to  trace  its  origi- 
nal, 
*  Dr.  Haw's  Living  Temple,  Part  2,  pag.  12 1;   122. 

U 


i62  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE         ciia?.  x. 

nal,  has  been  likewlfc  evinced.  But  all  this  were  indeed  of 
Jefs  confideration,  if  nature's  light  could  afliire  U5  of  pardon, 
or  direifi  as  to  the  means  whereby  it  may  be  obtained.  But  here 
it  13  no  lefs  dcfedive,  than  as  to  the  former.  That  we  are  all 
guilty  of  fm  even  the  dcifis  do  acknowledge  ;  the  Oracles  of 
Keafon  own  that  all  men  at  fcmetimes  err,  even  the  befl,  in 
their  adlions.  And  the  evidence  of  it  is  fuch,  that  none  can 
get  over  the  truth,  if  he  is  not  plainly  refolved  to  deny  what 
is  nioft  evident.  Now  this  being  the  cafe,  that  we  have  ail 
tranfgrelTed,  it  is  cf  the  highefl  importance  to  know  whether 
God  will  pardon  us,  or  upon  what  terms  he  will  do  it?  If  he 
punilh  us,  what  a  cafe  are  we  in?  How  can  they  who  fear  pu- 
niihment  expe6l  rewards  !  But  becaufe  this  is  a  difficulty  of  no 
fmail  importance,  and  the  deifls,  fince  they  fee  they  cannot 
clear  it,  make  their  bufmefs  to  obfcure  the  importance  of  the 
cafe,  and  render  it  more  involved;  we  fhall,  therefore, 

I.  State  the  cafe,  and  clear  the  importance  of  it. 

II.  Difcover  the  weaknefs  of  nature's  light  about  it. 

III.  Speak  fully  to  a  particular  exception  about  repentance. 

S  E   c  T.     I. 
Wherein  the  Importance  of  the  Difficulty  is  Jlated' 

I  F  the  deifts  fhould  allow  fin  to  be  fo  great  an  evil,  as  we 
pretend  it  is,  it  would  exceedingly  embarrafs  them  ;  therefore 
they  labour  to  fmooth  the  matter  by  telling  us,  that  either  it  is  no 
evil,  or  one  of  not  lo  great  confideration,  as  is  commonly  ima- 
gined :  but  the  wildnefs  and  unreafonablenefs  of  this  attempt 
will  be  eafily  (hewn,  by  a  confideration  of  the  evil  of  fin. 
It  is  not  my  defign  to  write  largely  on  this  head,  but  only  to 
condefcend  on  a  few  of  thofc  confiderations,  whereon  we  infill 
for  proving  {in  to  be  exceeding  Jinjul :  which,  although  they 
are  built  on  rational  grounds,  yet  we  are  led  to  them  by  the 
afliftance  of  revealed  light. 

I.  Sin  is  a  tranfgre/fion  of  a  lazut  the  highcft  law,  the  law 
cf  the  fupreme  and  righteous  Governor  of  the  world.  Where 
there  is  no  Uw  there  is  no  tranjgre/fipn.  And  fuch  as  the 
law  is,  fuch  is  the  tranfgreliion.  There  is  no  mere  jull  way 
of  meafuring  the  evil  of  fin,  than  by  confidering  the  law  it 
violates.  The  law  bears  the  imprefs  of  the  higheft  auihoiity, 
that  of  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  univcrfe.  Every  tranfgreifiou. 
mult  therefore  import,  if  not  a  contempt,  yet  certaini)^  a  v/ant 

of 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       163 

of  due  regard  to  this  authority,  which,  how  criminal  it  is  in 
man,  who  is  as  to  being,  prefervation  and  well-being,  every 
way  dependent,  is  eafily  undcrftood.  Moreover,  this  law  is 
not  a  mere  arbitrary  appointment,  but  fuch  as  is  the  necefiary 
Tcrult  of  the  nature  of  God  and  man  ;  and  therefore  the  violation 
of  it,  imports  no  lefs,  than  an  accufation  of  the  reditude  of  God's 
nature,whence  the  law  refults  ;  and  charges  unfuilablenefs  there- 
to, upon  the  nature  of  man,  as  being  To  made,  that,  without 
wrong  to  itfelf,  it  cannot  be  iubje«ft  to  the  rule  of  God's  govern- 
ment.    And  v/ho  fees  not  how  deeply  this  reflects  on  God? 

2.  Sin  contradi£\s  the  great  defign  of  man's  being.  God  made 
us  and  not  we  ourjelves.  It  is  blafphemy  to  allege,  that  infi- 
nite vvifdom  made  fo  noble  a  creature  as  man  without  de- 
fign. Nor  can  it  reafonably  be  pretended,  that  the  chief  aim 
of  God  in  making  him  was  any  other,  than  his  having  the  felf- 
fatisfa6iion  of  having  a6\ed  as  became  him,  and  having  made 
a  work  every  way  worthy  of  his  vvifdom  and  holinefs.  And  fince 
man  alfo  was  capable  of  propofing  defigns,  it  is  foolifti  to  ima- 
gine, that  God  eithercould  or  would  allow  him  to  make  any  other 
his  chief  end  than  the  pleafure  of  God  ;  oradting  ^o  as  to  make  it 
appearthat  he  was  every  worthy  of  his  Author.  But  when  man  fins 
he  plainly  countera6\s  what  God  dcfigned,  and  he  was  obliged 
to  defign;  for  he  pleafes  not  God,  but  himfelf;  and  this  is 
doing  what  in  him  lies  to  fruftrate  God  of  the  defign  he  had  in  his 
v/ork,  and  dabafe  the  being  and  powers  given  him  for  the  honour 
of  God  by  employing  them  againft  him,  and  ufing  them  in  con- 
tradiction to  his  declared  will. 

3.  Sin  mifreprefents  God.  The  works  of  God  bear  an  im- 
prefaof  God's  wifdom  and  power.  Man  only  v.^as  made  capable 
of  reprefenting  his  moral  perfections,  his  holinefs,  juflice,  truth, 
and  the  like.  But  when  he  fins,  he  not  only  fails  of  his  duty, but 
really  mifreprefents  God  his  maker,  as  one  who  approves  fin, 
that  is  dired^iy  crofs  to  his  will,  which  is  ever  congruous  to  the 
holinefs  of  his  nature  ;  or,  at  lead,  as  one,  who  either  wants 
v/ill  or  power  to  cruili  the  contra veener  ;  and  fo  he  is  reprefent- 
ed  either  as  tmholy,  or  impotent ;  or  one,  who  can  tamely  al- 
low his  will  to  be  countera6led  by  a  creature  that  he  has  made 
and  fuftains.  But  what  horrid  reflexions  are  thefe  on  the  holy 
God? 

4.  Sin  accufes  God  of  want  of  wifdom  and  gocdnefs  in  ap- 
pointing laws  which  were  not  for  his  creature's  good,  and  he 
could  not  obey  wirhoqt  detriment ;  of  envy,  in  barring  the  crea.- 

ture 


i64  AN   INQUIRY  INTO  THE       chap.  x. 

ture  by  a  law,  from  that  which  is  neceflary  to  his  happinefs ;  of 
infufficiency,  to  fatisfy  the  creature  he  has  made,  while  he  is 
obliged  tofeek  for  that  elfewhere,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in 
him,  in  the  w:Ay  of  obedience  ;  and  of  folly,  in  makifig  fuch  a 
law,  as  cannot  be  expected  to  be  obeyed,  in  regard  the  creature 
lubje61ed  to  it,  gain?  more  by  breaking  than  by  keeping  of  it. 

I'inally,  to  crown  all,  fin  dethrones  God,  and  fets  the  crea- 
ture in  his  room.  The  honour  of  God's  law  and  authority,  and 
the  finncr's  good,  are  wickedly  fuppofed  to  be  inconfiftent,  and 
the  latter  is  preferred.  The  will  of  the  Creator  aVid  creature  crofs 
one  another,  and  the  creature's  will  is  preferred.  The  friendfhip, 
favour,  and  fufficiency  of  Deity  is  laid  in  balance  againft  fome 
other  imaginary  good,  and  decifion  is  given  againft  God.  Thefe 
are  a  few  of  the  many  evils  of  fin.  They  are  not  drained  ones. 
This  is  not  a  rhetorical  declamation  againft  fin,  wherein  things 
are  unjuftly  aggravated  to  raife  odium  againft  it;  but  a  plain  ac- 
count of  a  few  of  the  evils  of  it,  which  yet  is  infinitely  fhort  of 
what  the  cafe  would  admit.  But  who  can  fully  reprefent  the  evil 
that  ftrikcs  againft  infinite  goodnefs,  holinefs,  jufticc,  vs/ifdom, 
and  fupreme  authority  ?  Who  can  unfold  its  aggravations,  (avs 
he  who  knows  what  God  is,  and  what  he  is  to  man,  and  what 
man  is,  and  how  many  ways  he  is  dependent  on,  fubje6>,  obli- 
ged and  indebted  to  God?  Well  therefore  may  firi  be  faid  to 
have  an  infinity  of  evil  in  it. 

The  deifts,  to  evade  the  difficulties  arifing  from  this  evil 
of  fin,  take  different  gourfeq.  Some  plainly  deny  any  fuch 
ihing  as  evil,  or  that  there  is  any  thing  morally  good  or 
bad.  Thomas  Aikenhead,  who  was  executed  at  Edinbrugh, 
January  8,  1697,  ^^^  '"''^  blafphemics,  in  his  paper  he  deli- 
vered from  the  fcaffbld,  tells  us  what  his  thoughts  were  in 
in  this  matter,  and  upon  what  grounds  they  were  built.  When 
in  his  rational  inquiries  he  came  to  confider,  whether  we  were 
capable  of  otfending  God,  he  tells  us,  ''  That  after  much 
**  pondering  and  ferious  confideration,  he  concluded  the  nega- 
*•  tive."  The  famed  Mr.  Hobbs  was  not  of  a  very  different 
mind,  for  he  plainly  afferts,  *'  That  there  i^  nothing  good  or 
*'  evil  in  itfelf,  nor  any  common  laws  conftituling  ubat  is 
*'  naturally  juft  or  unjuft  :  but  all  things  a^c  to  be  meafured 
**  by  what  every  man  judgcth  fit,  where  there  is  no  civil  eo- 
*'  vernrnent ;  and  bv  the  lav.'s  of  fociefy,  where  there  is  one." 
And  elfewhere,  "  Before  men  entered  into  a  ttatc  of  civil  go- 
**  vernrnent,  there    v/as   not  any   thing  juft    or    unjnft,    foraf- 

**   much 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       163 

*^  much  as  jud  and  unjuft  are  the  relatives  of  human  laws  ; 
**  every  action  being  in  Itfelf  indifferent."  And  whether  Spi- 
j:oza  was  not  of  the  fame  mind,  is  left  to  thofe  to  judge,  who 
have  time  and  leifure  to  trace  his  meaning,  in  his  obfcure 
and  dcfignedly  involved  way  of  writing.  But  furely  this  pro- 
pofition  in  his  atheiflical  ethicks  looks  very  like  it,  **  Si  ho^ 
**  mines  liberi  nafcerentur  filter  aute?n  eft  juxta  Spinozam, 
**  quijtcunclum  duBum  vel  ex  duElu  rationis  agit)  nullum  boni 
*'  ii3  mail  for  mar  tnt  conceptumt  quamdiu  liberi  ejfent*'  Mr. 
Hobbs  has  been  learnedly  confuted  by  many,  fuch  as  Dr. 
Cumberland,  Mr.  Tyrell,  and  almoft  all  who  write  of  the 
law  of  nature.  Spinoza  has  likewlfe  been  examined  by  Wit- 
tichius  and  many  others.  The  firft,  vjz.  Thomas  Aikenhead, 
his  grounds  I  Ihall  purpofe  and   examine. 

The  firil:  In  his  own  words  runs  thus,  **  I  thought,  fays 
**  he,  a  great  part  of  morality,  if  not  all,  proceeded  ex  arbitrio 
*'  hominum\ f  as  of  that  of  a  kingdom,  or  commonwealth,  or 
**  what  moft  men  think  convenient  for  fuch  and  fuch  ends, 
**  and  thefe  ends  are  always  teripinated  upon  being  congruous 
^*  to  the  nature  of  things;  now  v/e  fee  that  according  to  men's 
**  fancies  things  are  congruous  or  incongruous  to  their  na- 
**   tures,  if  not  to  the   body,  yet  to   the  tlainking  faculty." 

The  fum  of  tjils  confufed  difcourfe,  which  probably  he  learn- 
ed from  Hobbs,  amounts  to  this;  God  has  fixed  no  law  to 
our  moral  a6\ions,  by  which  they  are  to  be  regulated.  Thefe 
which  are  called  moral  laws,  are  only  the  determinations  of 
governments,  or  the  concurring  judgment  of  men,  concerning 
what  they  think  meet  to  be  done  for  their  own  ends.  That 
wiiich  fome  judge  meet  and  congruous,  others  may  find  un- 
fuitable  to  their  nature  and  ends,  and  fo  are  not  obliged  to  obey. 
But  I.  Are  not  all  thefe  ungrounded  affertions,  whereof  no  proof 
is  offered,  but  the  author's  deluded  fancy?  Has  it  not  been 
irrefragably  demonftrated  by  as  many  as  difcourfe  of  moral 
good  and  evil,  that  antecedently  to  any  government  among 
men,  we  are  under  a  law,  the  law  of  nature,  and  that  this  is 
the  will  of  God.  3.  If  all  thefe  had  kept  filence,  does  not  the 
thing  itfelf  fpeak  ?  What  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  there 
\h  a  law  of  nature,  and  that  this  is  the  law  of  God  ?  We  are  cer- 
tain, 

*  "  If  men  were  born  free  (and  he  is  free  according  to  Spinoza, 
*<  who  ads  according  to  the  guidance  of  reafon)  they  would  forai 
"  no  conception  of  good  or  evil,  as  long  as  they  wer<;  free/' 

+  "  From  the  wiii  of  man," 


iC'3  AN    INQLTIRY    INTO   THE       chap.  x. 

tain,  that  we  are  made  cf  rational  natures,  capable  of  laws  and 
gov'crnnient.  We  are  no  lefs  fure  that  God  made  us,  and  made 
us  To.  It  is  felf-evident,  that  to  him  who  made  us,  it  belongs  to 
govern,  and  difpoie  of  us  to  thofe  ends  for  which  we  were  made. 
And  we  by  our  very  beings  are  bound  to  obey,  fubmit,  and  fub- 
jecl  ourfeives  to  his  will  and  pleafure,  who  made  us  and  on 
whom  we  every  way  depend,  and  therefore  his  will,  if  he  make 
it  known,  is  a  law,  and  the  higheft  law  to  us.  Again,  it  is 
clear  tiiat  this  reafon,  if  we  attend  to  it,  tells  us  that  fomc 
ihirin;s  are  to  be  done,  and  fome  things  left  undone;  fuch  as 
thcfe,  that  we  arc  to  ferve,  love,  obey  and  honour  him  that 
made  us,  upholds  us,  and  on  whorn  we  every  way  depend  ; 
;hat  we  arc  to  carry  toward  our  fellow-creatures,  as  it  becomes 
rhofs,  who  have  the  fame  original  with  us,  whe  arc  fubjedied 
to  the  fame  rule,  are  obliged  to  purfue  the  fame  ends;  and 
that  we  are  ^o  difpofe  of  ourfeives,  as  the  author  of  our  na- 
ture allows  us.  Thefe  are  all,  if  not  felf-cvident,  yet  next 
Jo  it,  and  eafily  deducible  from  principles  that  are  fo.  Fur- 
ther, the  reafon  that  is  implanted  in  us  by  God,  tells  us  fo,  wc 
are  to  take  what  it  leads  us  to,  while  duly  ufed,  as  the  will 
of  God,  and  fo  a  law  to  us.  **  For  whatever  judgment 
*'  God  makes  a  man  with,  concerning  either  himfelf,  or  other 
'•  tilings,  it  is  God's  judgment,  and  whatever  is  his  judgment 
*'  is  a  law  to  man  ;  nor  can  he  ncgle^  or  oppofe  it  without 
'*  fm,  being  in  his  exigence  made  with  a  necelTary  fubjcc- 
**  tion  to  God.  Such  and  fuch  di6ldtes  being  the  natural  ope- 
*'  rations  of  our  minds,  the  being  and  efTentiai  conftitutlon  of 
*•  which,  in  right  reafoning,  we  owe  to  God;  we  cannot 
'*  but  cileem  them  the  voice  of  God  within  us,  and  confe- 
**   quentiv  his    law  to  us  *." 

What  he  tells  us  of  men's  different  apprehen(ions,  about 
what  is  right  or  wrong  makes  nothing  to  the  purpofc.  That 
only  ilicws  that  in  many  iuRances  we  are  in  the  dark  as  to 
what  is  good  and  evil,  which  is  granted  ;  but  will  not  infer 
that  there  is  no  fixed  nieafure  of  good  and  evil.  In  many  ge- 
neral trutlis,  all  who  apply  themfelves  to  tliink,  underftand  the 
terms,  and  have  the  truths  nropofed,  do  agree.  And  perhaps,  all 
that  is  kncwab'e  of  our  duty  by  the  light  of  nature,  isdeducible 
from  fuch  principles  of  morality,  as  all  rational  men  who  have 
them  fairly  propofed  to  them,  muft:  aflent  to.     And  dedudlions 

from 

*  bir  Ci^fliks  Woifelcy's  Scriptars  Belief,  pag.  321  33* 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MO DEkN  DEISTS.       167 

from  laws,  when  duly  made,  are  of  equal  authority  with  the 
principles  from  M'hich  they  are  inferred.  And  finally,  when 
men,  in  purfuance  of  their  perverfe  natures,  follow  what  is 
crofs  to  thofe  di£\ates  ofreafon,  they  are  ccndcmned  by  their 
confcicnces,  which  (hews  them  under  the  obligation  of  a  law, 
and  that  a6\ing  in  a  congruity  to  their  natures  as  corrupt,  is 
not  the  ftandard  they  are  obliged  to  walk  by,  iince  their  own 
reafon  checks  them  for  doing  it.  They  who  would  defire  to 
have  this  matter  fully  difcourfed,  may  read  others  who  have 
done  it  defignedly,  of  whom   there  is  great  plenty. 

His  fecond  reafon  runs  thus:  **  Alfo  we  do  not  know  what 
'*  is  good  or  evil  in  itfelf,  if  not  thus ;  whatfcever  can  be  at- 
**  tributed  to  God,  that  Is  good;  and  what  cannot,  is  evil. 
**  And  we  know  not  what  can  be  attributed  to  God,  but  fuch 
"  things  as  by  a  dedu^ion  we  afcribe  to  him,  we  call  perfe6t, 
#**  and  fuch  as  we  deny  to  be  in  him,  we  call  Imperfet^,  and  fo 
**  we  moft  ignorantly  commit  a  circle.  There  is  no  other  no- 
**  tion  of  things  in  themfelves  good  or  evil." 

It  is  much  harder  to  find  the  fenfe  of  thefe  words,  if  tliey  have 
any,  than  to  anlwerthe  argument.  Tlie  defign  of  it  is  to  prove 
that  there  is  no  flandard  whereby  we  may  judge  v/hat  is  good 
and  what  is  evil.  The  force  of  the  argument  amounts  to  this, 
that  there  is  no  way  how  we  come  to  know  any  thing  to  be 
good,  but  by  this,  that  it  may  be  afcribed  to  God.  But  we 
cannot  know  whether  it  is  to  be  afcribed  to  God,  unlefs  we 
know  that  it  is  perfe£l  or  good. 

This  is  thin  fophiflry,  which  I  might  eafily  expofe,  were  it 
to  any  j^urpofe  to  difcover  the  weaknefs  of  that,  which  its  au- 
thor was  alhamed  of  and  difowned.  As  to  the  rirfl  propofition, 
**  That  there  is  no  other  way  to  know  whether  any  thing  be 
good  ar  evil,  but  this,  that  it  can  or  cannot  be  afcribed  to  God." 
I .  The  complex  propofition  is  falfe  ;  for  there  are  other  wavs 
whereby  v/e  may  know  things  to  be  good  or  evil.  And  this 
holds  whether  we  take  it  in  a  phyfical  or  a  moral  fenfe.  Wf 
know  that  to  be  morally  good  which  God  enjoins  i.s  to  do. 
We  know  the  M'ill  of  God  in  fome  infiances,  from  the  nature 
God  has  given  us  ;  and  from  thefe  inflances  our  reafon  can  in- 
fer others.  As  to  phyfical  good,  we  know  thijigs  to  be  good 
or  perfe6^,  by  acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  things,  and  by 
the  felf-evident  notions  of  peifeClion  :  for  there  are  fome  things, 
fuch  as  dependence,  fubiei.iion,  and  the  like,  which  without 
any  reafoning  about  the  mutter,  \ve  underdand  to  be  imperfect 


i68  AN   INQ,UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  x. 

or  perfe6\.  As  foon  as  we  underftand  the  terms,  and  know 
that  a  perfection  is  that  which  it  is  better  for  any  being  to  have 
than  to  want  :  and  then  what  thefe  particular  words,  depen- 
dence, fubjed^ion,  dzc,  fignify.  This  alone  overthrows  his 
whole  argument.  2.  The  maxim  which  he  fixes  as  a  flandard. 
That  is  good  which  may  be  afcribed  to  God,  and  that  is  not 
good  which  may  not  be  afcribed  to  him;  if  it  is  taken  in  its  full 
extent,  it  is  falfe  as  to  moral  good,  of  which  the  only  queftion  is  : 
for  it  is  certain,  that  it  is  good  for  man  to  be  a  dependent,  a 
fubjeiSt,  &c.  which  cannot  be  afcribed  to  God.  If  it  is  taken 
in  a  phyfical  fenfe,  it  is  not  to  the  purpofe  ;  and  befides,  it 
would  even  in  this  fenfe  need  fome  caution. 

As  to  his  other  propofition,  **  That  we  cannot  otherwife 
know  what  is  to  be  afcribed  to  God,  than  by  knowing  that  it 
is  good  or  perfed,"  it  can  fcarcely  be  fuppofed  to  fpeak  of  good 
in  a  moral  fenfe ;  and  in  any  other  fenfe  it  is  impertinent.  If 
it  is  underftood  in  a  moral  fenfe  it  is  likewife  falfe,  for  we  may 
know  that  things  which  are  not  in  their  own  nature  moral  per- 
fe6lions,  belong  to  God,  fuch  as  power,  omniprefence,  &c. 
If  it  be  underftood  in  any  other  fenfe,  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it. 

The  next  head  that  he  adds  is,  '*  That  all  men  will  confefs 
"  that  any  thing  may  be  morally  evil  and  good  alfo,  and  con- 
**  fequently  any  thing  decent  or  indecent,  moral  or  immoral. 
**  Neither,  though  there  were  things  in  themfelves  evil,  (if 
**  we  do  not  apprehend  other  things  inftead  of  them)  can  wc 
*'  have  any  inclination  thereunto  ?  Otherwife  the  will  could 
"  vvifh  evil." 

But  r.  Who  will  grant  him  (in  any  other  fenfe  that  will  be 
fubfervient  to  his  purpofe)  that  all  adlions  are  indifferent  ?  I 
know  none  but  men  of  his  own  principles.  2.  As  for  what  he 
pretends,  that  we  cannot  incline  to  that  which  is  in  its  own 
nature  evil,  unlefs  it  be  under  the  notion  of  good,  I  fee  not 
what  this  fays  for  him  ;  it  is  enough  that  we  can  do  that  adion 
which  is  evil  and  prohibited,  yea,  and  which  wc  know  is  pro- 
hibited, to  conftitute  fm  and  make  the  (inner  deeply  guilty. 

But  not  to  infili  any  further  on  this  inconfiderable  trifier, 
whofe  undigefted  notions  fcarce  deferve  the  confideration  we 
have  given  them  ;  and  much  lefs  did  they  become  the  awful 
gravity  of  the  place  where  they  were  delivered.  There  are 
others  of  the  deifts  who  think  it  not  fafe  to  venture  thus  far  : 
b^caufe   in    effecfl  this  overthrows   all  religion  and  eftablilhes 

plain 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEfSTS.     i6g 

plain  alheifm  :    yet   they   mince  the  matter  and   lelTen   fm  as 
much  as  they   can. 

Herbert  goes  this  way,  telling  us  the  Tinner's  excufe,  that 
"  I,  Ho?nines  funt  naiura  fua  fragiles  peccaioqiie  obnoxii, 
**  2.  Peccata  hominum  -non  ta?n  in-Dei  contu??ieiia?77,  qua?n  tn 
**  pTopriam  utilitataUf  fuh  bom  alicujv.s  apparentis  cbtentu  fieri 
**  pkrurnque  ;  ac  licet  in  eo  homines /alitor entur,  nihil  tamen  t?i- 
*^  fenjQ  i7i  Deu??i  ammo  patratum  ejje* .''  That  is,  **  Men  are  by 
**  nature  frail  and  liable  to  fin  :  and  they  do  not  (in  out  of  con- 
"  tempt  of  God,  but  for  their  own  profit,  while  fm  appears 
**  under  the  (hew  of  good.  And  although  in  (his  men  are  de- 
**  ceivcd,  yet  there  is  nothing  done  with  any  ill  defign  againft 
"  God." 

A.  W.  in  his  letter  to  Charles  Blount,  pleads,  "  That  though 
**  the  offence  is  committed  againfl:  an  infinite  being,  we  are  but 
**  finite  creatures,  who  commit  finf." 

But  now,  as  to  the  firfl  of  thefe  reafons  or  excufes,  I  fear,  if 
it  plead  any  thing,  it  calls  the  fault  over  on  God.  Are  we  to 
excufe  ourfelves  from  our  frailty?  Well,  either  we  are  made 
fo  frail  that  we  are  n<?t  able  to  obey,  or  we  are  not  ;  if  we  are 
able  to  obey,  then  where  is  the  excufe  when  God  requires  no 
more  of  us  than  what  he  gave  us  power  to  perform  ?  If  we  are 
not  able,  then  how  came  God  to  fubje6\  us  to  a  law  we  were 
notable  to  obey?  If  we  have  rendered  ourfelves  unable,  is  net 
this  our  fault? 

As  to  the  fecond,  '*  that  we  do  not  fin  out  of  contempt  of  th3 
Deity,  but  for  our  own  advantage."  I  anfwer,  i.  The  princi- 
ple that  the  finner  goes  on,  according  to  this  apology  made  for 
him,  viz.  That  the  thing  he  does,  though  it  crofles  the  Jaw  of 
God,  yet  makes  for  his  own  advantage,  is  highly  injurious  to, 
and  blafphemous  againfl:  God  :  for  it  fuppofes  that  God  has  bar-» 
red  man  from  what  contributes  to  his  happinefs,  and  fuppofes 
that  more  advantage  is  to  be  kad  by  difobedience,  which  is  a  high 
aggravation  of  the  fault.  2.  I  will  not  grant  him,  that  there 
is  no  oppofition  in  the  heart  to  God.  What  though  there  be 
not  plain,  declared,  dired  and  open  hoflility;  yet  there  is  an 
aiienaton  of  affe6lion,  averfion  from  converfe  with,  and  a  ne- 
gle6lof  God  to  be  found  with  all  in  more  or  lefs;  of  which  their 
a6iions  are  a  fufficient  proof. 

As 

*  De  Relig.  GentiHum,  Cap.  5,  pag.  199. 
t  Oracles  of  Reafon. 

X 


fjo      .        AN    INClUiRY    INTO   THE         chap.  x. 

As  to  the  third,  "  that  an  offence,  though  againfl:  an  infinite 
God,  is  leflcncd  by  the  confideration  of  the  finner's  being  finite  ;" 
I  anfwer,  i.  This  excufe  pleads  for  all  fin  alike:  for  let  the 
linner  fin  never  ib  deeply,  yet  he  is  finite  fiill.  2.  If  this  be 
well  confidered,  it  is  perfe6ily  ridiculous:  for  the  meafure  of 
fin,  its  greatnefs  is  not  to  be  taken  this  way,  but  the  contrary; 
for  provided  (he  objeCl  againli  whom  it  is  committed  is  infinite> 
the  meaner  the  pcrfon  is  that  commits  it,  the  greater  fiill  is  the 
fault. 

But  in  very  deed,  all  thefe  attempts  to  extenuate  fin,  as 
they  are  uielefs  to  finners,who  are  not  judged  by  man,  but  God, 
and  not  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  eflimate  he  makes,  but 
that  which  God  makes  of  fin  ;  fo  likewifc  they  fmell  rank  oF 
the  want  of  a  due  regard  for  the  honour  of  the  Deity,  and  are  of 
the  worfi.  confequences  to  theworid,fince  they  tend  to  encourage 
fin,  open  a  door  to  impiety,  and  embolden  finners  to  go  on 
in  courfes  they  too  much  incline  to.  Befides,  fuch  excufes 
for  fin  do  but  ill  become  perfons  who  make  fuch  an  horrible 
out  cry  againfl  the  doctrine  of  fatisfa6lion  upon  all  cccafion.s, 
as  having  a  tendency  to  make  forgiveneis  cheap  in  finner's 
eyes,  and  to  embolden  men  to  fin  without  fear.  May  not  the 
charc;e  be  here  retorted?  Who  gives  the  greateR  encouragement 
to  fib,  he  that  aOTerts  the  neceffity  of  a  fatisfadlion,  or  he  who 
extenuates  fin  to  that  degree  as  to  encourage  the  finner  to  hope 
he  may  get  off  without  a  fatisfaiStion  ?  I  fiiall,  to  what  has  been 
iaid,  fubjoin  a  ^tw  words  from,  a  late  difcourle.  If  the  quotation 
Utra  long,  the  excellency  of  it  will  eafily  excufe  it;  befides, 
it  h  fo  full  to  the  purpofe,  and  leads  fo  dire^lly  to  that  which 
is  the  defign  of  what  has  hitherto  been  faid.  **  Furthermore, 
*'  it  is  to  be  confidered,  that  the  rights  of  the  divine  govern- 
**  ment;  the  quality  and  meafure  of  offences  committed  againd 
**  it ;  and  when  or  upon  v/hat  terms  ihey  may  be  remitted  ;  or 
**  in  what  cafe  It  may  be  congruous  to  the  dignity  of  that  go- 
**  vernment,  to  recede  from  fuch  rights,  are  matters  of  fo 
high  a  nature,  that  it  becomes  us  to  be  very  fparing  in  ma- 
king any  efiimatc  about  them,  efpecially  adiminidiing  one. 
Even  among  men,  how  facred  things  are  majefiy  and  the 
rights  of  governm.ent?  And  how  much  above  (he  reach  of  a 
**  vulgar  judgment  ?  Suppofe  a  company  of  peafants  that  un- 
**  derltand  little  more  than  what  is  within  the  compafs  of  their 
*'  mattock,  plough  and  fliovel,  fbould  take  upon  them  to  judge 
**  of  the  rights  of  their  prince,  and   make  an  eflimate  of  the 

"  meafure 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       171 

-'  meafure  of  offences,  committed  agalnfl  the  majefly  and  dle- 

**  niry  of  government,  how  competent  judges  would  we  think 

'*  them?  And   will  we   not  acknowledge  the  moft  refined  hu- 

*'  roan  vinderftanding  as  inconpetent  to   judge  of    the  rights  oC 

*•  the  divine  government  ?  Or  meafure  the  injurioufiiefs  of  the 

*'  offence  done  againft   it,  as  the  meaneft  peafant  to  make  an 

*'  ellimate  of  thefe   matters  in  a  human  government?    If  only 

**  the  reputation   be   wronged  of  a  perfon  of  a  better  quality, 

**  hov^  ftrictly  is^  it  infilled  on,  to  have  the  matter  tried  by  his 
peerSjOr  pcrfons  of  an  equal  rank,  fuch  as  are  capable  of  under- 

*  Handing  honour  and  reputition  !    How  would  it  be  refented, 

*  that  an  affront  put  upon  a  nobleman,  (houid  be  ccmmitled  to 

*  the  judgment  of  fmiths  and  coblers,  cfpecially  if  they  were 


a 


participss  crhmnis*,  and  as  well  parties  as  judg 


"  When  the  regalia  f  of  the  great  Ruler  and  Lord  of  heaven 

and   eartli    are    invaded,  his   temple   violated,  his   prefencc 

defpifed,  his  image  torn  down  thence  and   defaced  :   Who 

among  the  fonsof  men  are  cither  great,  or  knowing,  or  in- 

**  nocent  enough  to   judge  of  the  offence  and  wrong  ?  Or  how 

fit  it  is,  that  it  be  remitted  u  ithout  rccompence  ?  Or  what  re- 

compence  would  be  proportionable  ?  Hov/  fuppofable  is  it,  that 

there  maybe  congruities  in  this  matter,  obvious  to  the  divine 

'*  underRanding,  which  infinitely  exceed  the  meafure  of  ours.t." 

From  what  has  been  faid,  it  is  eafy  to  underhand  the  im.por- 

fance  of  the  cafe.     All  mankind  are  involved  in  fin,  lie  under 

this  dreadful  guilt,  and  that  not  in  one,  but  in  many  infianccs. 

Now  if  they  are  not  fare   that  it   may  be  removed,  and  know 

not  in  whit  v/ay  this  is  to  be  done  ;  they  mud  either  not  take 

up   the  cafe,  or   they   muft   be  under  continual  difquietmento, 

dread  the  iif^,   and   fear  divine  refentments.     They  can  never 

expe£l  any  revt/ards  for  obedience,  and   confequently   they  muR 

jasi^uilh  in  it,  and  fo  all  religion  that  can  be  available  is  Ipfl. 

Sect.     IT. 
Skeining  the  darktufs  oj  Natures  Light  as  io  Pardoiu 

THE  importance  of  the  cafe  being  thuscleared,  we  now  pro- 
ceed   to  demondrate  the  infutticiency  of  nature's  light  to  help 

f>,  .  out 

'^  "  on:irers  in  the  crime." 
T  '*  Koyal  prerogatives.'"' 
X   Dr.  Hct'c  Uvin^j  Teir.ple,   Part  2,  pa?.   257,238,  239. 


172  AN  INC^UIRY  INTO  THE  chap.  x. 

out  of  this  ftrait.     And  that  we  may  widiout  fear  affert  it  fo,  is 
evident  from  the  enfuing  confideration3  : 

1.  That  light  which  failed  men  fo  far,  as  io  a  difcovery  of 
the  ilrait,  is  not  likely  to  help  them  cut  of  it.  If  we  under- 
hand not  where  the  difficulty  lies,  and  how  great  it  is,  we  are 
never  likely  to  folve  it.  Now  it  is  undeniable,  that  a  great 
part  of  the  woild  underftood  not  the  evil  of  fin,  or  of  how  vafi:  a 
coafi^ucnce  it  was  to  be  alTured  about  the  pardon  of  it.  The 
prevalent  darknefs  of  their  minds  about  the  nature,  holinefg 
and  JMilice  of  the  Deity  ;  their  own  natures  and  relation  to 
him  ;  their'ignorance  of  the  nature  of  fin  ;  the  commonnefsof 
it  in  the  world  ;  their  ftrong  inclinations  to  it,  and  other  things 
of  a  like  nature,  kept  them  from  apprehending  the  difficulty  of 
the  cafe.  But  above  all,  the  befi.  moralifts  amongfl  the  philofo- 
phcrs,  fuch  as  Socrates  and  Plato,  feemed  utterly  unconcerned. 
And  the  reafon  is  plain,  their  pride  blinded  them  fo,  that  they 
idolized  their  own  virtues,  and  made  no  reckoning  of  their 
fins. 

2.  They  who  had  a  little  more  concern  about  fin,  faw  fome- 
what  of  the  difficulty  of  this  matter,  but  found  themfelves  at  a 
Icfs  what  way  to  relieve  themfelves  :  and  therefore  they  had  re- 
courfe,  fome  to  philofophyj  mufic  and  mathematics,  for  the 
purgation  of  their  fouls  ;  and  others  to  lultrations,  facrifices 
and  diveile  wafnings,  and  1  do  not  know  what  other  fancies, 
v/hich  had  no  manner  of  foundation  in  reafon,  no  fu'jablenefs 
to  the  nature  of  the  difficulty,  no  divinev^arrant,  and  therefore 
were  never  able  to  fatisfy  the  confcicnce,  as  to  the  finner's  ac- 
ceptance with  God,  and  the  removal  of  the  guilt.  1  hefe  be- 
h;^  only  the  produtftions  of  their  own  imaginations,  notwith- 
Vranciingof  all  (hcfe,  their  fears  continued,  and  they  remained 
under  apprehenfiona  that  even  deat!i  fhould  not  terminate  their 
iiii^'ericSj  as  Lucretius  hirnfelf  fings, 

. —  /Jf  r:xenr  jUi  confcia  faSii^ 

Jt'ncmefuejis  adhihet  ftimnlo^y  terretque  flr^ellis, 
Kec  ^oidet  intercay  qui  tenninm  fjje  rnalonim 
I^cjfif^  nec  qui  Jit' penari4in  denique  fi^ns^ 
Atqiie  eadcm  melziit  magis  hcec  in  morle  gravejcaiit^ , 
o»  They  wiio  either  thought   fomewliat   deeper    of  the  cafe, 
or  at  Icaltj  feemed  to  do  io,  efpecially  at  tinies  when  the  im- 

preffions 

*  «  But  the  mind  confcious  to  itfelf  of  at^.ual  guilt*  by  f::'ari:ig  p'J. 
«*■  iiilkn.-:ent  appiiss  flings  to  itfeif  and  terrifies  itfclf  with  whips:  not* 


:  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       173 

preifions  they  had  of  divine  jnnice  were  quickened  by  fome 
torrible  plagues  or  judgments,  had  recourfe  to  things  that  vera 
io  far  from  relieving,  that  they  really  increafcd  the  guilt,  I 
iT.ean  that  abominable  cuftom  of  human  facrifices.  This  cruel 
ciillcm  almoft  univerfaliy  obtained  in  the  world,  if  we  may  be- 
lieve either  profane  or  facred  records ;  of  which  Dr.  Owen  in 
his  treatife  of  VindiBive  Juftice  gives  many  inftances.  They  not 
only  facrificed  men,  but  even  multitudes  of  them*  The  inftan- 
ces  of  this  kind  in  the  facred  records  are  known.  As  to  others, 
Ditmpras  quoted  by  Dr.  Owen  tells  us,  **  That  the  Normans  and 
**  Danes,  every  year  in  the  month  of  January  did  facrifice  to 
**  tiieir  gods  ninety-nine  men,  as  many  horfes,  dogs  and 
**  cocks*."  Clemens  Alexandria  quoted  by  the  fame  author, 
tells  what* the  ufage  of  the  nations  in  this  matter  was,  and  on 
what  occafion.' — "  Jam  vero  cum  cimtatts  6?  gentes  tanquam 
**  pejles  invafijfent,  fiva  pojlularunt  Ithamina  ;  &  Arifloniencs 
'*  quidan  Me/feniiiS-,  Ithometce  Jovi,  Trecentos  ma&avit,  fe  tot 
**  &  tales  rite  facrificarc  exijiimans,  in  quihus  ctiam  Theom- 
**  pompus  rex  Laced^monu7n  erat^  pra^clara  viclima'  Tauri  au- 
**  tern  populif  qui  habitabant  circa  Tauricam  Cherfoncjum,  quof' 
**  cunque  hofpites  apud  fe  ceperint,  Dianx  Tauric^  cos  ftatim 
*^  facrificant  finde  inhofpitalia  littora).  Hccc  tuet  facrificta  Eu' 
*^  Tipides  in  fcena  tragice  deca?7tatf»"  Here  are  no  Jefs  than 
three  hundred  facrificed  at  once,  and  among  them  a  king.  Here 
are  Grangers  facrificed.  And  any  one  that  will  read  there  will 
find  how  ufual  it  was  to  facrifice  their  children  and  nearefl  rela- 
tions. The  cuflom  is  barbarous,  and  fully  fpeak  out  the  de- 
fpair  of  men  awakened  to  a  ferious  confideration  of  fin,  and  the 

darknefs 

"  does  it  fee  in  tlie  mean  time  how  any  bounds  can  be  fet  to  its  fuf- 
**  ferings,  nor  what  will  at  lafLhe  the  end  of  its  punifiiment,  and  fears 
"  leftthefc  fame  fufferings  fhould  grow  more  grievous  at  death." 
Dr.  Owen  de  juiUtia  Vindicatrice,  Cap.  4.  page  69* 
+  "  But  when,  like  the  plague,  they  had  over- run  all  ftates  and  na- 
"  tions,  they  reqiiirerl  cruel  offerings.  Ariftomenes  the  MelTenian  facri- 
*'  ficed  three  hundred  men  to  Jupiter  Ithometes,  among  whom  likc- 
**  wife  was  Thecpopyus  king  of  the  Lacedemonians,  an  illuftrious  vic- 
<^  tim.  And  the  Tauri  a  nation  in  Crim  Tartary,  whenever  they 
"  caught  any  (trangers  among  themj  they  iinniediateiy  facrificed  them 
<*  to  Diana  Tauric?,  whence  their  fnores  were  proverbially  ftilcd  in- 
•*  l.ofpirable.  Euripides  reUici  thefe  facrifices  of  yours  in  a  tragic^ 
**  manner  on  the  Itage." 


174  AN  INCl'Jn^Y    INTO    THE        chap.  x. 

darkncfs  of  nature's  light.  If  it  could  have  pointed  to  any  other 
thing  that  could  quiet  iheconfcietice,  civilized  nations,  iuch  as 
thoie  among  whom  this  cuiloin  did  prevail,  would  never  have  had 
recourfe  to  it. 

4.  it  is  no  wonder  that  men  (liould  be  brought  to  fuch  flraits; 
for  rhey  wanted  the  knowledge  of  many  things,  that  wete  of  ab- 
iblute  neceifuy  to  make  tlicm  once  fo  much  as  underftand  v/hat 
a  caTe  tiiey  were  in.  They  knew  not»  nor,  ao  hssbeen  proven 
could  they  know  the  rife  of  fm,  and  therefore  could  not  knov/ 
what  eilimate  to  make  of  it,  nor  what  God  would  maike  of  it. 
They  knew  neither  the  extent  of  the  mercy  nor  juRIcejof  God, 
vvithout  which  it  was  impoilible  to  determine  in  the  cafe. 

5.  The  queftions  that  muft  be  refoived  before  the  mind  of  a 
fmner,  that  once  underftands  his  Rate,  can  be  iatisfied,  are 
io  many,  fo  intricate,  and  fo  palpably  above  the  reach  of  unen- 
lightened reafon,  that  it  isfoclilli  to  pretend  that  nature's  light  wlii 
or  can  fatisfy  the- mind  of  any  man  in  the  cafe.  Men  may  pre- 
tend what  they  wiU,  who  either  do  not  take  up  the  cafe,  or  who 
are  otherwife  themfelves  fatished  by  divine  revelation  ;  but  they 
who  feriouOy,  and  without  partiality  or  prejudice  view  the  cafe, 
\rili  have  ether  thoughts.  Who  v/iil  give  me  rational  fatisfa6^ion 
;:s  to  thofe  and  the  like  quefi ions?  Whether,  confidering  the 
jjTeatnefs  of  fi:^,  the  juftice,  wifdom  and  holinefs  of  God,  and  the 
honour  of  his  government,  it  is  confiftent  to  pardon  any  fm?  If  it 
i>e,  whether  he  will  pardon  all,  many  or  (cw  fins  ?  What,  or  what 
degrees  of  fin  he  will  forgive  :*  Whether  he  will  pardon  without 
any  reparation  for  the  honour  of  his  laws  or  not?  Upon  what 
cr  what  terms  he  will  do  it?  If  he  require  reparation,  what  re- 
paration, and  by  v/hom  is  it  to  be  performed?  How  fhall  we  know 
that  he  has  p-irdoned  ?  If  he  pardon,  whether  will  he  remit  all 
p'jnifhment  due  to  fin,  or  how  much?  Whether  will  he  miercly 
pardon,  or  will  he  over  and  above  re-admit  the  finner  to  grace, 
and  as  entire  favour  as  before  he  finned  ?  Whether  will  he  not 
only  p.irdon,  but  reward  tlie  finner's  imperfe6\  obedience?  Un-, 
iefs  ail  of  thefc  are  refoived,  the  dliticulty  is  not  loofed.  And 
who  will  undertake  to  rcfoive  them  and  give  rational  fatisfailion 
that  unaerfiands  the  cale. 

6.  Thefe  queftions  arc  not  only  above  the  reach  of  man  ;  but 
they  belong  not  to  him  to  judge  and  decide  them.  The  oflence 
is  committed  a^ainil  God.  He  alone  underftands  what  the  con- 
tempt of  his  authority,  the  diforder  brought  into  his  government 
by  fin,  and  the  dliobedience  of  his  creature  amounisunto:  what 

is 


PRINCIPl.ES  OF  THE  MODERN  DraSTS.      17J 

is  fit  to  be  done  in  the  caie,  he  alone  is  judge,  at  h'c  ti-ibunal 
it  is  to  be  tried,  Man  is  too  ignorant,  too  guilty,  and  too  par- 
tial in  his  own  favour  to  bs  allowed  to  judge  ?  Ko'.v  where  are 
the  decifions  of  Gcd  in  the  cafe  to  be  found  ?  Ai':  they  legible 
in  the  works  of  creation  or  providence,  or  confcienccs  cf  men  ? 
In  the  works  of  creation  it  cannot  be  pretended.  The  works 
of  providence  afford  innumerable  inflances  of  his  jufiice,  foirje 
of  his  forbearing  finners,  even  while  they  continue  in  tiieir 
fin,  and  loading  them  without  outward  elfevfts  cf  his  bol:^ity  ; 
But  where  is  the  finner,  of  whom  we  can  fav,  God  lias  for- 
given him  ?  Or  faid  that  he  will  forgive?  The  ccnfcienccs  cf 
men  read  them  fometimes  fad  ledurcs  of  jufiice  ;  but  never,  if 
they  be  not  informed  from  revelation,  any  of  forgivenei's. 

7.  All  the  pretences  that  are  offered  for  relief  in  this  cafe, 
are  abfurd,  vain  and  inrignificant.  They  are  si!  reducible  to 
this  one  head.  That  God  is  infinitely  merciful  ;  but  this  give; 
not  the  lead  relief.     For, 

1.  I  afk,  muft  God  then  of  necefTity  exercife  mercy,  cr  h  the 
egrefs  and  exercife  of  this  mercy  rccelTary  ?  If  it  is  not,  b.:t 
flill  remains  arbitrary,  and  in  the  pleafurecf  God  whether  hi: 
will  pardon  or  not  ;  then  I  inquire,  where  is  the  relief  pre- 
tended ?  Does  it  not  all  cvanifn  ?  Are  we  not  as  much  at  a  lofs 
as  before,  whether  he  Mill  pardon,  or  how  far,  or  upon  what 
terms  ?  If  it  is  necelTary  in  its  egrefs,  tiien  i  inquire,  how  is 
this  reconcileable  with  the  notion  of  merc)%  tlut  I'ecms  to  rcf- 
pe6l  voluntary  and  undef-srved  acSlsof  favour  iliown  to  them,  to 
whom  God  was  not  obliged  to  fnow  any  ?  Mow  is  this  reconci- 
leable to  or  confident  with  juftice,  which  is  exercifed  in  pu- 
nilhing  finncrs  ?  By  what  arguments  can  this  be  made  appear  ? 
Whence  is  it  that  there  are  fo  many  a«5is  of  jufiice,  and  no  in- 
flances known  to,  or  knowable  by  the  light  of  nature,  of  God  s 
having  pardoned  any  ? 

2.  Mercy  is  either  unlimited  in  its  egrefs  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is 
limited  and  cannot  be  exercifed,  but  upon  fuch  and  fi;ch  pro- 
vifos  as  make  the  exercife  of  it  confnlent  with  God's  averhon 
to  fin,  and  with  the  regard  he  has  for  the  authority  of  his  Jaws, 
the  concern  he  has  for  the  honour  of  his  government,  and  h's 
jufiice,  wifdom'and  holinefs,  then  we  are  where  we  were  be- 
fore :  For  who  can  tell  whether  it  be  conHPiCnt  with  theie 
things  to  pardon  ?  In  wliat  cafe  and  upon  what  prcvifos :  if  it 
is  not  limited  to  any  fuch  qualifications,  then  I  defire  to  know, 
how  this  is  reconcileable  to  his  nature  ?  How  is  fuch  mercy  con- 
fident with  any  exercife  cf  juftice  at  all  ?  What  account  can  be 

givcii 


176  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE        chap.  x. 

given  of  rfie  direful  effects  of  juftice,  whereof  the  world  isr 
full  ?  By  what  means  can  it  be  reconciled  to  the  holinefs  of 
God's  nature  to  pardon  impenitent  finners  ?  What  need  is  there 
for  any  to  guard  againit  fm,  lince  upon  this  fuppofition,  all  fm 
lliall  be  forgiven  ? 

3.  Is  infinite  mercy  univerfal  in  its  extent  ?  If  it  is  not,  then 
I  defire  to  know,  what  fins,  what  finners  (hall  be  pardoned  ? 
How  fliall  any  know  whether  his  fins  are  the  fins  that  are  to  be 
pardoned  ?  If  it  is  univerfal  in  its  extent,  and  all  fins  muft  be 
pardoned  ;  then  is  there  net  a  door  opened  for  all  fin  ?  How  can 
this  be  proven  ?  Why  have  we  no  evidence  of  this  in  God's 
providential  dealing  ?  Whence  have  we  (o  many  evidences 
of  the  contrary?  If  it  is  faid  that  mercy  mufl:  in  more  or  lefa 
be  exercifed  toward  all,  then  I  inquire,  who  tells  us  fo  ?  How 
far  fliall  it  be  exercifed  ?  Will  it  pardon  all  or  part  ?  Upon  what 
terms  ?  Will  it  not  only  pardon,  but  remunerate  the  guilty  ? 

4.  I  inquire  who  are  the  proper  objects  of  mercy  ?  Or  what 
is  requifite  to  conftitute  the  proper  obje6t  of  it?  Amongfl;  men, 
the  proper  obje£l  of  that  mercy  which  belongs  to  governors,  is 
not  fin  and  mifery.  To  fpare  and  pardon  upon  this  fcore  only, 
is  a  plain  vice  in  men  efpecially  in  governors.  But  the  object 
of  mercy  is  fuch  fin  and  mifery,  as  is  confident  with  the  ho- 
nour and  good  of  the  governor,  government  and  the  governed 
to  pardon.  Now,  if  it  be  thus  in  this  cafe,  then  I  fee  nothing, 
but  we  arc  v^here  we  were,  and  are  plunged  into  all  our  diffi- 
culties; and  why  it  fhould  not  be  thus,  I  fee  no  reafon.  For 
there  is  no  man  who  knows  what  God  is,  what  fin  is,  what  juf- 
tice  is,  that  will  fay  it  is  confident  with  the  honour,  juftice,  wif- 
^om  and  holinefs  of  God  to  pardon  impenitent  finners,  going 
on  in  their  fins.  And  when  they  fay,  that  his  mercy  only  re- 
quires him  to  pardon  penitent  finners,  then  this  plainly  fays, 
that  the  exercife  of  his  mercy  is  confined  to  thofe  who  are  its 
proper  obje6\s,  that  is,  not  to  miferable  finners,  for  the  impeni- 
tent are  mod  fo  ;  but  to  thofe  whom  he  may  fpare,  in  a  deco- 
rum to  his  government  and  congruity  to  his  other  perfeflions. 
And  indeed  this  is  what  cannot  in  reafon  be  denied  :  and 
when  it  is  granted,  then  it  remains  a  quefiion,  not  yet  decided, 
nor  indeed  determinable  by  reafon,  whether  repentance  alone 
is  fufficient  to  this  purpofe  ? 

5.  The  cafe  of  jufticc  and  mercy  are  quite  different  as  to 
their  egrefs  :  For  jufiice  has  refpecSl  to  a  fixed  rule,  an  univer- 
fal rule,  and  requires  that  regard  be  had  to  it,  in  dealing  with  all 
that  arc  under  that  rule  :  whereas  mercy  only  is  converfant  about 

par- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODEP.N  DEISTS.        177 

particular  Inilances,  according  to  the  wifdcm  and  pleafurc  of 
him  in  whom  it  refides. 

6.  The  inhnitenefs  of  either  of  thefe  attributes,  neither  re- 
quires nor  admits,  that  there  be  intiniie  numbers  of  inilances  of  ei- 
ther:  but  that  the  afts  of  juftice  and  rtiercy  be  fuch  as  becomes 
the  infinite  nature  of  God,  when  it  is  proper  to  exercife  them,  or 
when  th:^  wifdom,  holincfs,  jufticc  or  mercy  of  God  require 
that  thev  be  exercifed. 

But  the  deitts  obje-SV,  i.  "  That  upon  fuppofition  that  God  ivili 
"  not  pardon  fin,  there  is  no  ufe  of  his  mercy*."  1  anfwer.we  do 
nof  iav  he  will  not  pardon  fin  ;  but  we  fay,  nature's  light  cannot 
teli  whether  he  will  pardon  it  or  not,  or  what  is  the  cafe  where- 
in mercy  takes  place.  We  own  its  ufe,  but  we  fay,^  nature'3 
light  cannot  tell  when  and  how  it  is  proper  to  exercife  it. 

Again,  it  is  pretended,  '*  That  God  is  infinitely  merciful,  then 
*'  he  mull  as  the  leaft  of  its  operations  pardon  the  greateft  of 
"  finsf."  This  is  plainly  denied,  and  we  have  told  wherefore 
above. 

It  is  further  pretended,  **  That  juOice  has  done  its  bufinefj, 
"  when  it  has  condemned  the  finner,  and  then  mercy  brings  him 
"  off  |:"  but  this  is  grofs  ignorance.  It  belongs  as  much  to  juf- 
tice  to  take  care  that  its  fentence  be  executed,  as  to  fee  it  pafTed. 

Again,  it  is  urged,  "  That  though  God  be  infinitely  juft  as  well 
**  as  merciful,  yet  his  juQice  is  only  as  inherent,  not  as  extenfive 
*'  as  his  mercy  toward  us:  for  \^e  are  punifhed  only  according  to 
**  ourdefervings,  but  mercy  is  (hown  us  above  our  defervings^." 
The  firil  partisfalfe.  The  very  contrary  affertion,  viz.  that  juf- 
tice  is  more  extenfive,  is  true,  as  has  been  cleared  above,  if  we 
refped  the  number  of  obje^ls.  The  proof  of  it  is  a  plain  (ophlfi-n. 
For  I.  It  is  not  true  that  mercy  beftows  its  effc6fs,  which  in  their 
nature  arc  above  our  defervings,  fo  more  perfons  than  juflice 
gives  its  effects,  which  are  according  to  defert.  2.  The  effe^fls  of 
raercy  are  not  more  above  deferving,  than  the  effet^s  of  jufilcs 
are  according  to  it.  3.  The  effects  of  juftice  are  with  infinite 
exadnefs  proportioned  to  defervings.  And  all  that  can  be  faid  is, 
that  the  e(Fe6ls  of  mercy  arefuited  to  the  nature  of  infinite  mer- 
cy, not  that  they  are  given  to  infinite  number  of  perfons,  or  in- 
finite degrees. 

Further,  it  is  pretended,  '*  That  God  with  whom  we  have  to 
**  do,  is  a  Father  who  will  not  animadvert  feverely  upon  his  pe- 

*'  nitent 

*  Aikenhcad's  Speech.  -!•  Ibid.  J  Ibid, 

t  A,  W.  in  his  Letter,  Oracles  of  Reafon, 
■     Y 


:78  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE       chap.  v. 

*'  nit^nt  fon^."  I  anfwer,  as  he  is  a  father,  fo  he  is  a  rlghreous 
judge.  Firrther,  though  he  be  a  father,  yet  he  is  not  fuch  a  father 
as  men  are,  inBrrn,  liable  to  failings,  that  needs  his  children, 
tii^t  may  give  tliem  occafion  or  temptation  to  offend,  that  is  of 
t';c  laiTie  Jiature  with  them.  And  hence  no  firm  argument  can  be 
inferred  from  csny  thing  that  is  known  in  this  matter  by  the  light 
of  nature.  Belides,  the  meaneft  offence  agbnd  God  is  more 
atrocious,  than  the  greatefl  offence  againft  one's  natural  father. 
For  which  neverthelefs  there  is  no  forgivenefs,  but  puniihment 
witiiout  mercy,   by  the  law  of  nations  and  nature. 

Finally,  all  thefe  are  but  generals,  that  m,ay  well  raife  fuf- 
picions  in  the  minds  of  men,  but  can  never  give  particular 
idthJ-^ioii  to  any  one  man,  as  to  his  cafe,  cr  any  one  of  the 
particuhr  diliicuhies  that  have  been  mentioned.  They  no  more 
latlsfy,  than  thofe  notions  that  generally  prevailed,  of  the  placa- 
bility of  the  Deity,  which  had  their  rife  at  fird;  from  revelation, 
■Nvere  continued  by  the  neceffity  of  finners,who  having  challenges 
for  till,  b-boo'-ed  to  take  fane)  uary  fome  where,  and  handed 
down  by  tradition:  But  being  general,  and  leaving  men  at  a 
lofs  ablaut  the  means  of  atoning  the  Deity,  were  really  ofnoufe 
if  not  to  keep  men  from  running  into  downright  defpair,  and 
keep  them  up  in  attendance  upon  fomewhat  that  looked 
like  religion  ;  but  whereon  the  minds  of  fuch  as  really 
underllood  any  thing  of  the  cafe,  could  never  find  fatisfac- 
tion. 

There  is  only  one  thing  that  feems  of  any  moment,  that 
is  objected  to  all  this;  and  that  is,  that  nature's  light  which 
dilcovers  the  fore,  difcovers  a  falve  for  it,  to  wit,  repentance, 
to  which  we  (hall  anfwer  in  the  fcliowing  fe6\ion,  that  is 
peculiarly   defigned  to  confider   this. 

Sect.     III. 

Where:?!  it  is  inquired  whether  Repentance  is  fujicicut  to  alone 
Jcr  Sin?  Hozu  far  Nature's  Light  enables  to  it?  What  aj- 
Jurance  Natures  Light  gives  of  Par  Jon  upon  Repentance. 

IT  now  remains  that  we  confider  tlie  only  exception,  whicii 
is  of  moment,  and  that  is,  that  repentance  is  a  fufficient 
atonement,    tiiat  natttre's  light    difcovers  this,  and    fo  we   are 

not 

§  Blount's  Reli?.  Laici,  pag.  69.  Herbert  de  Relig,  Gen.  pag,  199. 


fl 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       179 

jiot  left  without  relief.  This  is  the  more  conuderable  that 
feveral  Chriftians,  yea  divines  of  great  note,  and  fomc  of 
them  defervediy  of  high  elleem,  have  fcen  meet,  in  compli- 
ance with  their  feveral  hypothefes  in  divinity,  to  drop  avler- 
tions  that  fcem  to  favour  this.  We  fhall  firft  propofe  their 
opinions,  who  alTert  this,  and  then  confider  it. 

The  deiils  go  all  this  way  as  one  mm.  I  Tnall  offer  one 
for  all,  and  it  is  Charles  Dlount,  who  not  only  fpeaks  the 
i'enCCf  but  tranflates  the  very  words  of  the  learned  lord  Herbert, 
He  tells  us  then,  "  That  repentance  is  the  only  kr.oy/n  and 
**  public  means,  which  on  our  part  is  required  for  fatisfyin|]j 
**  the  divine  juilice,  and  returning  to  the  right  way  of  ferving 
**  God*."  And  for  clearing  this,  he  premits  to  it  thefe  enfuing 
confideratlons,  **  i.  That  he  that  judgeth  man  is  his  Father, 
"  and  doth  look  on  him  as  a  frail  creature,  obnoxious  to  Cm* 
*'  2.  That  he  generally  finds  men  fin,  rather  out  of  frailty, 
**  than  out  of  any  defire  to  offend  his  divine  Majefly. 
"  3.  That  if  man  had  been  made  inwardly  prone  to  fin,  and 
**  yet  dePiitute  of  all  inward  means  to  return  to  him  again, 
**  he  had  been  not  only  remedilefs  in  himfelf,  but  more  mi- 
**  ferable,  than  it  could  be  fuppofed  an  infinite  Gocdnefs  did 
*'  at  firft  create,  and  doth  Hill  perpetuate  hiiman  kind. 
"  4.  That  man  can  do  no  more  on  his  part,  for  the  fatisfvincr 
*'  of  divine  juftice,  than  to  be  heartily  lorry  and  repent  him 
**  of  his  fins,  as  well  as  to  endeavour,  through  his  grace,  to 
"  return  to  the  right  way,  from  which  through  his  tranfgrcf- 
"  fion,  he  had  erred  :  or  if  this  did  not  fuffice  for  the  making 
**  of  his  peace,  that  the  fupreme  God  by  inflicting  fome  tern- 
**  poral  punilhment  in  this  life,  m.ight  fatisfy  his  ov/n  juftice. 
**  5.  That  if  temporal  punifhment  in  this  life,  v/ere  too  lit- 
**  tie  for  tlie  fin  committed,  he  might  yet  inflict  a  greater 
**  puniQiment  hereafter  in  the  other  life,  without  giving  eternal 
*'  damnation  to  thofe^  who  (if  not  for  the  love  ofgoodnefs) 
**  yet,  at  leaf!:,  upon  fenfe  of  punilTiment,  would  not  fin  eter- 
**  nally.  Notwithftanding,  fince  thefe  things  may  again  be 
*'  controverted,  1  fiiail  infill:  only  upon  that  univerfally  ac- 
*'  kncwledged  propcfition  firfl  laid  dov/nf."  This  proposi- 
tion, with  the  explications,  he  tranfiates  from  Herbert,  only 
has  made    fome    fniall   additions. 

It 

*  Rsli^^Io  Laici,  pag,  68,  69,  70. 

i  Heibfrt  dc  Relig.  Gcntil.  pag.  199. 


ti 


l8o  AN    IKQ/JIRY  INTO^^THE        chap.  x. 

It  is  no  wonder  to  fee  thofe  fpcak  fo;  but  it  is  a  little 
more  cdJ  to  hear  Ciiriilians  talk  fo#  One  who  would  feem 
very  zealous  for  Chriftianity  tells  us,  **  That  the  God  of 
"   patience    and     confolation,     who   is  rich   in    ruercy,    would 

forgive  his  frail  olispring,  if  they  acknowledge  their  faults, 
'ii>ipproved  the  iniquity  of  their  tranfgrefiions,  beggtrd  his 
*'  pardon,  and  refolvcd  in  earned:  to  conform  their  actions 
*'  to  this  rule,  which  they  owned  to  be  juli  and  right  :  this 
"   way    of  reconciiiaton,    this    hope  of  atonement,     the   light 

**   of   nature   revealed    to  them. He   thai    made   ufe  of  this 

**  candle  of  the  Lord,  (viz.  rcc:fon)  fo  fares  to  find  his  duty. 
*'  could  not  mifs  to  find  alfo  the  way  to  recoriciliatlon  and 
**  forglvenefs,  when  he  had  failed  of  his  d'-ity*.'"'  Much  more 
fpeaks    he  to  the  fame  purpofe. 

But  it  is  flranger  to  hear  divines  fpeak  fo.  And  yet  we  hnd 
one  telling  us,  '*  That  ths  fame  l)ght  of  nature,  which  de- 
*'  dares  to  us  our  duty,  dilates  to  us,  when-  we  have  failed 
**  in  that  duty,  to  repent  and  turn  to  God  with  trufting  to 
*'  Ills  mercy  and  pardon,  if  we  do  fo  and  net  elfe.  We 
^'  do  find  it  legil-dc  in  our  hearts,  that  God  is  good  and  wife- 
*'  \y  giacious  to  pity  our  infirmities,  to  confider  our  lofl 
"  eflate,  and  nccellaiy  frailty,  as  that  there  is  a  God,  and 
*'  any  worlhip   that   is    at  all   due  to   him  f." 

'1  o  the  lainc  purpofe  the  learned  Baxter  fpeaks  in  his  Rea- 
fons  of  the  Chrifiian  Religion,  Part  j.  Chap.  17.  Dr.  Which- 
cct  in  his  fermon  on  Aiils  xli.  q8.  and  others  too  large  to  quote. 

But  nov;,  witliall  due  deference  to  thofe  great  names,  1  fhall 
ttke  leave  to  olier  the  following  remarks,  wherein  1  fhall  clear 
my  own  mind,  and  pfler  tjic  ^cafons  on  which  I  dident  from 
them. 

J.  I  obf^rvc  that  the  deifts  fpeak  more  uncertainly  about  this 
matter  ;  whereas  thefe  ('hrifiian  writers  feem  more  pofitive.  The 
deiPis  i'eem  not  to  want  their  fears  that  repentance  may  not 
ferve  vhe  turn,  and  therefore  they  feem  wiiiing  to  admit  of  tern-- 
pornl  puniihments,  and  even  punidiments  after  tim.e,  only  they 
liave  not  will  to  think  of  eternal  puniOiments  ;  as  v.e  heard  from 
IJerbert  and  Blount,  who  both  fpeak  in  the  fame  words  on  this 
h'cad.  But  the  Chrifiian  writers  are  pofitive.  And  I  am  jea- 
40 ub  the  reafon  is  not,  that  they  faw  farther  into  the  liglit  of  na- 
ture 

*  Locke's  Reafonphlenef';  of  ChrilHanity,  pag,  25^,  256. 

f  Mr.  rlumphrey's  Feaceable  Difquifitious,  Chap.  14.  pag.  57. 


Px^INClPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        iSi 

lure  than  the  deifis  ;  but  that  they  lean  more  firmly  to  the  fcrip- 
ture  revelation,  which  aiFures  us  that  penitent  (inners  (hail  be 
forgiven.  Though  I  muft  add,  the  fcripture  no  where  fays  that 
penitent  nnners  Ihall  be  forgiven  upon  their  penitence,  as  that 
which  is  fufficient  to  atone  the  juftice  of  God.  And  to  fpeak 
plainly,  however  confident  thofe  worthy  perfons  are,  that  they 
have  read  this  do6lrine  in  the  book  of  nature,  I  dare  be  bold  to 
aitirm  that  they  had  either  failed  in  the  difcovery,  orftammered 
a  little  more  in  reading  their  leflbn,  if  they  had  not  learned  it 
before-hand  out  of  the  book  of  the  Scriptures  ;  though  the 
thing  feems,  when  they  have  read  it  there,  to  approve  itfelf  fo 
much  to  reafon,  that  reafon  cannot  but  alTent  to  it.  It  is  well 
obfervcd  by  one  of  thofe  authors,  with  whom  we  now  manage 
this  debate,  "  That  when  truths  are  once  known  to  us,  though 
**  by  tradition,  we  are  apt  to  be  favourable  to  our  own  parts,  and 
*^  afcribe  to  our  own  underftanding  the  difcovery  of  what,  in 
*•  truth  we  borrowed  from  others,  or,  at  leaft,  finding  we  can 
**  prove,  what  at  firft  we  learned  from  others,  we  areTorward4o 
'*  conclude  it  an  obvious  truth,  which,  if  we  had  fought,  we  could 
*'  not  have  miffed.  Nothing  feems  hard  to  our  underftandings, 
**  that  is  once  known  ;  and  becaufe  what  we  fee  with  our  own 
**  eyes,  we  are  apt  to  overlook,  or  forget  the  help  we  had  from 
*'  others,  who  firft  fhewed  and  pointed  it  out  to  us,  as  if  we 
**  were  not  at  all  beholden  to  them  for  that  knowledge  ;  for 
"  knowledge  being  only  of  known  truths  ,*  we  conclude  our 
**  faculties  would  have  led  us  into  it  without  any  alTifiance  ;  and 
**  that  we  know  thefe  truths  by  the  ftrength  and  native  light 
**  of  our  own  minds,  as  they  did,  from  whom  we  received  them 
**  by  theirs,  only  they  had  the  luck  to  be  before  us.  Thus 
**  the  whole  ftock  of  human  knowledge  is  claimed  by  every 
**  one,  33  his  private  pofl'effion,  as  foon  as  he  (profiting  by 
*'  other's  difcoveries)  has  got  it  into  his  own  mind  ;  and  fo  it  is; 
*'  but  not  properly  by  his  own  fingle  induftry,  nor  of  his  own 
**  acquifition.  He  (iudies,  it  is  true,  and  takes  pains  to  make  a 
**  progrefs  in  what  others  have  delivered,  but  their  pains  were 
*'  of  another  fort,  who  firft  brought  thofe  truths  to  light,  which 
*'  he  afterwards  derives  from  them.  He  that  travels  the  roads 
*'  now,  applauds  his  own  ftrength  and  legs,  that  have  carried 
*'  him  fo  far,  in  fuch  a  fcantling  of  time,  and  afcrlbes  all  to 
**  his  own  vigour,  little  confidering  how  much  he  owes  to  their 
**  pains,  who  cleared  the  woods,  drained  the  bogs,  buiit  the 
**  bridges,  and  made  the  ways  paifable  ;  without  which  he 
**  might  have  toiled  much  with  little  progrefs,     A  great  many 

thinjrs 


iS2  AN   INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  x. 

"  things  which  wc  have  been  bred  in  the  belief  of  from  our  cra- 
**  dies  (and  are  notions  grown  familiar,  and  as  it  were  natural  to 
**  us,  under  the  gofpel)  we  take  for  unqueflionable  obvious  truths 
**  and   eafily  demonftrable,  without  confidering  how  long  we 
'*  might  have  been  in  doubt,  or  ignorance  of  them,  had  reve- 
lation been  filent.     It  is  no  diminifliing   to  revelation,  that 
'•*  reafon    gives  its  lufFrage   too    to  the    truths  revelation  hath 
'"'  dii'covered.     But    it    is   our    miRake  to   think  that   becaufe 
reallm  confirms  them  to  us,  we  had  the  firft;  certain  know- 
*^  ledge  of   them  from  thence,  and  in  that  clear   evidence  we 
**  now   poffefs   them*."     How   applicable   this  excellent  dif- 
courfe  is  to    the  cafe  in  hand,  will  appear    from  what  we  de- 
fign  to  fubjoin  on  this  head.     Though  after  ail,  that  which  the 
Icripture  delivers,    and   reafon  coniirms  in   this    cafe,    is  not, 
*'   That  repentance  is  fufhcient  to  atone  the   jufiice  of  God,  or 
tnat  God  will   pardon  a  penitent  finner,  merely  on  the  ac- 
count of  his  penitence,"  which  the  deifts*  cafe  requires.  The 
icripturcfplainly  teach  the  contrary,  and  thofe  learned  pcrfons, 
or  fome  of  them  at  lead  who  own  them,  believe  according  to 
the  fcriptures,  the  contrary,    which   makes  a  confiderable  dif- 
ference  betwixt  them  and   the  deifts  ;   though  in  this  cafe,  they 
feem   to   fpeak  the  fame  things.     But  that  which  the  fcripture 
alferts,  is,  **  That   penitence  is  a  qualification  fuitable  to  a  fin- 
**  ner  to  be  pardoned,  and  that  it  ig  not  fuitable  to  the  wifdom 
and  juPiice  of  God  to  pardon  one,  who  is   not  'forry  for  for- 
**  mer  offences,  and  refolves  to  obey  for  the  future*."     Reafon 
confirms  this  indeed,  but  it  is  not  to  the  purpofe. 

2.  But  to  come  a  little  more  clofe  to  the  purpofe  ;  this  re- 
pentance, which  is  pretended  to  be  fufhcient,  con  fids  of  two 
^^'cX?,f  forrow  for  the  offence,  and  a  return  to  oheditnu.  This 
fair,  part,  a  return  to  obedance,  what  is  it  ?  Nothing,  but 
only  a  performance  of  the  duties  we  were  antecedently  bound 
unto  by  the  law  of  creation,  which  only  receives  a  nev/  de- 
nomination from  its  relation  to  an  antecedent  deviation,  or 
lin.  This  denomination  adds  no  new  worth  to  it,  nor  does 
the  relation  whereon  it  is  founded.  Wherefore  we  can  never 
reafonably  fuppofe,  that  there  is  any  great  matter  in  this, 
that  can  atone  for  the  tranfgrclfion.  It  is  well  if  it  obtains 
approbation  as  a  part  of  our  duty.  But  no  reafonable  man 
Ci..i  pretend  that  it  aioncs  for  any   part  of  our  fin. 

3.  Though 
*  Lor.'^e's  Pvesfoaabkncf.,  of  Chridianity,  pag.  279,  2&c>  281. 


1 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       183 

3.  Though  nature's  light  difcovevs  our  obligation  to  that 
tluty,  which  now,  becaui'e  fin  preceded,  muft  be  called  a 
return  ;  yet  it  is  a  queftion,  if  nature's  light  is  able  to  bring 
a  finner,  that  has  once  gone  away,  to  fuch  a  return  as  is 
neceffary.  For  i.  We  have  above  proved  that  nature's  light 
is  d€fe6live  as  to  motives  lo  obedience,  as  to  the  difcovery  of 
particular  duties,  and  much  more  is  it  defe6tive  as  to  motives 
to  a  return  :  becaufe  there  is  more  required  to  encourage  a 
finner  to  come  back,  who  has  once  offended,  than  to  engage 
him  to  continue.  There  is  a  difcouragcment  arifrng  from 
fear  of  punilhment,  and  falling  (hort  cf  any  reward  he  might 
have  expedted,  upon  the  account  of  his  fm  to  be  removed, 
and  that  is  not  eafily  done,  as  (hall  be  fhown.  2.  Befides, 
r.ot  only  difcouragements  lie  in  the  way  of  a  return,  but 
crofs  inclinations,  averfions  from  duty,  and  inclinations  to  fm. 
Now  1  am  nor  fatii/fied  that  nature's  light  can  remove,  or 
dire6l  how  to  remove  thefe ;  of  which  we  may  fpeak  more  ful- 
ly in  the  next  chapter.  So  that  as  for  this  part  of  repentance 
we  neither  fee  of  what  ufe  it  is  as  10  atonement,  nor  do 
we   find  it  clear  that    nature's  light    can  bring  any  to  it. 

4.  The  ftrefs  of  the  bufinefs  then  muft  lean  on  this  forrov/ 
for  by-gone  tranfgreffions,  that  is  the  other  part  of  the  com- 
pofition.  But  here  I  am  fur e  it  will  be  readily  granted,  that 
every  fort  of  furrow  for  fjn  will  not  ferve.  If  one  is  on- 
ly grieved  for  the  lofs  he  has  fuftained,  the  hazard  he  has 
run  himfelf  into,  and  the  evil  he  has  to  fuffer,  or  fears  at 
leaft  for  his  ofFencc  ;  this  can  be  available  to  no  man.  Where- 
fore though  nature's  light  may  bring  a  man  to  this,  and  has 
oft  done  it,  yet  this  fignifies   nothing  in   the  cafe. 

5.  The  forrow,  that  only  can  be  pretended,  is  that  which 
ariles  purely,  or  at  leaft,  principally  from  concern  for  the 
diihonour  done  to  God.  New  as  to  this  forrow,  it  is  to  bs 
obferved,  that  it  is  not  any  ad^ion  cf  curs  done  in  obedience 
to  any  command  :  but  it  is  a  palhon,  in  its  own  nature  un- 
eafy,  as  all'forrow  is,  though  fuitable  to  a  finner,  and,  upon 
the  fuppcfition,  that  he  is  fo,  ufeful  perhaps.  And  it  rcfults 
from  the  joint  influence  cf  prevailing  love  to  God,  his  law 
and  authority,  and  a  clear  convi6\icn  of  fin's  having  injured 
his  honour,  and  our  being,  on  this  account,  obnoxious. 

6.  It  is  not  eafily  to  be  granted  that  nature's  light  can 
bring  any  man  to  this  forrow.  Since  i.  It  is  evident  that 
the  temper  men  are  naturally  of,  is  quite  contrary  to  that  which 

give? 


iS4  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE      chap,  x, 

gives  rife  to  focli  a  forrow.  We  are  naturally  averfe  from  God, 
as  {hall  be  made  appear  afterwards/ and  are  not  under  the  in- 
fluence of  any  fuch  prevalent  love  to  him,  and  it  is  not  eafy  to 
prove  that  nature's  light  is  able  to  remove  this  natural  averfion 
of  the  heart  from  God  :  but  of  this  more  in  the  next  chapter, 
2.  God  can  never  appear  amiable  to  a  finner,  if  he  is  not  re- 
vealed as  one  ready  to  forgive.  We  cannot  be  forrovvful  for 
our  fin,  if  we  are  not  ferioufly  convinced  that  we  have  finned, 
and  fee  the  demerit  of  fin.  If  we  are  convinced  that  we  have 
finned,  and  deferve  punifhment,  we  cannot  have  prevalent  love 
to  God,  which  is  requifite  to  give  life  to  this  forrow,  make 
it  run  in  the  right  channel,  and  proceed  on  thofe  accounts, 
which  will  make  it  acceptable  to  God,  or  available  to  us,  un- 
lefs  he  appear  to  us  as  ready  to  forgive,  which  nature's  light 
doth  not  difcover. 

7.  I  doubt  if  nature*s  light  calls  us  to  repentance,     I  allow 
that  there  art    feveral    things  obvious  to   nature's  light,  which 
may    be  faid  to  drive  us  to    repentance,    becaufe    they   ferve 
to  difcover  to   us   thefe   things  whereon   this    forrow    follows, 
bind   the  obligation    on    us    to  that   duty,    which,  becaufe  of 
the  preceding    fin   is    called    a    return,    and    ferve    as    argu- 
ments to  enforce  the  compliance,  provided  we  had  a  call  or  in- 
vitation to  return,  I  mean  a  new  call.     For  clearing  this,  we 
are  to  obferve  that,  were  man  innocent,  and   guilty  of  no  fault, 
and  had   his  obedience  no  imperfe£\ion  necelTarily  cleaving   to 
it,  and  were  he  under  no   fuch  inconveniency  as  might  make 
him  dread  wrath,  or  fear  his  obedience  might  be  rejected  ;  in 
in  that  cale  a  difcovery  of  the   obligation  hs  lies  under  to  duty 
were  a  call  and  invitation  fufficient,  asfecuring  him,  at  leaf!  as 
to  to  the  acceptance  of  his  duty.     But   where  there  are  thofe 
things  in  his  cafe,  fin  and  imperfe6\Ion  cleaving  to  the  duty,  and 
the  performer  chargeable  with  guilt  on  both  thofe   accounts,  in 
order  to  engage  him  to  duty,  there  is  requifite  a  new  call  or  invi- 
tation, fecuring  him  againfl    thofe   grounds  of  fear,  and  giving 
him  ground  to  expe(^  acceptance.     Now  it  is  fuch  a  call  as  this, 
tljat  only  can  bring  the  finner  to  repentance.    And  this  we  de- 
ny that  nature's  light  gives ;  though  we  own  that  it  difcovers 
many  things,  that  may  be  faid  in  fomie  fcnfe,  to  lead  to  repent- 
ance :    Becaufe,  upon  fuppofition  of  fuch  an  invitation,  they  are 
improveable    as    arguments  to  enforce   compliance   with   dutv. 
Thus,  if  God   invite  me  back  again,    his  goodncfs  difcovercd 
in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  invites  to  go  to  him, 

and 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      iSj 

and  all  the  direful  evidences  of  his  anger  againft  finners  per- 
fuade  the  fame  thing  :  and  therefore  may  be  faid  to  lead,  or 
rather  drive  to  repentance  ;  becaufe  they  have  a  tendency  thrt 
way  in  their  ov/n  nature,  and  arc  capable  of  fuch  an  imprcve- 
rnent :   But  ftlll  it  is  only  upon  the  foregoing  fuppoHtion. 

8.  To  make  this  matter  yet  a  little  more  clear,  1  gran  tthatthe 
light  of  nature  difcovers  finful  man  to  be  ftiii  under  an  obligation 
to  obey  God.  As  long  as  God  is  God,  and  man  his  creature, 
man  is  under  a  tie  to  fubje6lion,  and  God  has  a  right  to  man's 
obedience.  This  obedience  to  which  man  is  bound,  after  once 
he  has  finned,  muft  be  called  a  return.  Further,  the  light  of 
nature  teaches,  that  if  man  had  yielded  perfe6^  obedience,  he 
ihould  not  have  done  it  in  vain.  Acceptance,  at  leail,  he 
fhould  have  had,  and  what  other  reward  the  goodnefs  of  God 
thought  meet.  And  that  man  fuflains  a  great  lofs  by  fin,  that 
interveens  betwixt  him  and  his  expc6lations  from  the  goodnefs  of 
God,  and  befides,expofes  him  to  the  hazard  of  his  juft  refentment, 
which,  if  it  is  feen,  as  by  nature's  light  in  fome  meafure  it 
may  be,  will  occafion  forrow.  Further,  nature's  light  will 
teach  that  the  more  deeply  we  fin,  the  more  we  have  to  fear, 
and  therefore  out  of  fear  and  a  regard  to  our  own  intercQ  and  ex- 
pedation  of  being  freed  from  thofe  feverer  judgments,  which  a 
progrefs  in  fin  draw  on  men,  may  be  induced  to  return.  Now 
all  this  nature's  light  difcovers:  but  neither  is  this  forrow,  which 
favours  of  fome  regard  to  ourfelves,  but  of  little  or  none  to  God ; 
nor  this  return,  which  is  not  that  cheerful,  cordial  obedience 
that  God  requires  and  accepts,  of  any  avail  in  the  cafe.  No 
man,  that  knows  what  he  fays,  will  pretend,  that  fuch  a  for- 
row or  fuch  a  return  is  fufficient  to  atone  the  juftice  of  God  for 
by-gones,  or  even  obtain  acceptance  for  itfelf,  which  has  fo 
much  of  love  to  (elff  and  fo  little   of  that  which  refpeds  God. 

9.  But  the  repentance  that  is  available  in  this  cafe  is  a  forrow, 
flowing  from  prevalent  love  to  God,  and  grieving,  if  not  only, 
yet  principally  for  the  wrong  done  to  God,  and  a  cheerful  fol- 
lowing of  duty  upon  profpe6t  of  God's  being  a  rewarder  of  it. 
Now  to  call  or  to  make  up  a  fufficient  invitation  to  a  finner,  to 
fuch  a  repentance,  it  is  requifite  that  i.  God  be  reprefented 
in  fuch  a  way,  as  a  finner  that  fees  himfelf  guilty,  can  love  him, 
delight  in  him,  and  draw  near  to  him.  But  this  he  can  never 
be,  if  he  is  not  reprefented  as  one  with  v/hom  certainly  there  is 
forgivenejs,  2.  It  requires  further,  that  God  be  reprefented  as 
one,  who  will  accept  of  finners'  obedience,  notwithftanding  01 

Z  theic 


iS5  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE        chap,  .t- 

their  defert  of  wrath  for  former  difobedience,  and  this  requires 
fi'ui  that  he  be  a  God  that  forgives.  3.  Further,  it  is  requifite, 
that  he  be  reprefented  as  one,  that  will  accept  of  obedience,  not 
only  from  one  that  has  finned,  but  that  implies  fin  and  imper- 
fection in  it.  Now  this  cannot  be,  if  he  is  not  known  to  be  one 
that  is  plenteous  in  ??iercy  and  zvill  abundantly  pardon.  Now  I 
fay  the  light  oi  nature  gives  no  fuch  difcovery  of  God:  and 
therefore  gives  no  call  or  fufficient  invitation  to  this  repentance. 
10.  Nor  will  it  help  out  here,  to  fay,  that  the  light  of  nature  doth 
reprefent  God  as  placable,  one  tvho  may  be  pacified  :  for,  fhould 
I  grant  that  it  does  io^  yet  this  cannot  invite  to  fuch  an  obedi- 
ence, fo  long  as  I.  It  Is  left  a  qucftion,  whether  he  be  a6lu- 
ally  reconciled,  or  pofitively  determined  to  forgive  ?  2.  Efpe- 
cially  confidering,  that  he  has  not  pointed  to,  and  pofitively  de- 
clared on  what  terms  he  will  be  appeafed.  Yea  3.  Since 
moreover  he  has  given  no  vifible  inftance,  knowable  by  the 
light  of  nature,  that  he  has  forgiven  any  particular  perfon.  But 
4.  On  the  contrary,  the  world  is  full  of  the  mofl  terrible  ef- 
fe6is  of  his  difpleafure,  and  thefe  falling  mod  heavily  on  the 
bef^,  even  ihofe  who  go  farthefi  in  a  compliance  with  duty.  In 
a  word,  thcfe  dark  notions  of  a  placable  God,  which  yet  is  the 
utmoli  that  unenlightened  reafon  can  pretend  to,  are  utterly  in- 
fumcient  to  bring  any  of  the  children  of  men  to  that  repentance 
we  are  now  in  qucfl  of;  it  is  fo  funk,  and  as  it  were  quite  ob- 
fcurcd  by  crofs  appe.»rances.  And  all  that  can  reafonably  be 
faid,  is,  that  in  the  providence  of  God  there  is  fuch  a  feemlng 
cortrariety  of  good  and  evil,  that  men  know  not  what  to  make 
of  it,  hut  are  tolTed  by  contrary  appearances.  And  of  this  we 
have  a  fair  acknowledgment  by  one,  who,  befides  that  he  was  a 
perfon  of  great  learning,  was  not  only  a  great  ftlckler  for  the 
natural  difcoverics  of  this  placability,  but  one  of  the  firfl  broach- 
ers  of  it,  being  led  to  it  by  the  peculiar  hopothefis  he  main- 
tained and  advanced  in  divinity,  1  mean  the  learned  Amyrald. 
After  he  has  aflerted  the  natural  difcoverics  of  this  placability, 
and  alleged  that  they  lead  to  repentance,  yet  fubjolns — **  But 
*'  there  are  (fays  he)  motions  in  the  corrupt  nature  of  man 
*'  which  tVufirates  the  effevSt,  if  God  did  not  provide  for  it  in 
*'  another  manner  (that  is,  by  revelation).  For  man  files  from 
*'  the  prefence  of  God  through  fear  of  punifhment,  and  cannot 
'*  hinder  the  prevalence  of  it  in  his  foul  ,  fo  that  as  a  man  af- 
**  frighted  beholds  nothing  ftedfafily,  but  always  imagines  nexi- 
**  occafions  of  terror,  and  reprefents  hideous  phantafms  to  him- 

«*  felf; 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     187 

'"  ielf ;  To  we  are  not  able  to  allow  ourfelves  leifure  to  confider 
*•  attentively  this  difpenfatlon  of  the  goodnefs  of  God  towards 
**  the  wicked,  nor  thereby  to  aflure  ourfelves  cf  obtaining  mercy 
**  and  pardon.  As  a  lewd  wretch,  whofe  confcience  bears  him 
<*  witnefsofraanyheinouscrimes,  though  helliould  perceive  ibrric 
**  connivance  in  the  magiftrate  for  a  time,  and  his  judge  (hew 
**  him  fome  countenance,  cannot  but  be  dilUufifal  of  him,  and 
**  i'ufpe*!:!  that  he  does  but  defer  his  puniflriment  to  another  tiiiic, 
**  and  alTuredly  relerves,  it  for  him  ;  efpccially  it  he  hath  an 
"  opinion  that  the  magiflrate  is  not  fuch  an  one  as  hinifelf,  but 
**  abhors  the  wickedneQes  committed  by  him.  Now  are  we 
**  univerfally  thus  principled,  that  as  we  have  thofe  vv'hom  we 
*'  fear,  lb  we  never  bear  good  will  toward  them  of  whom 
**  we  have  fome  diffidence.  And  the  diflrudiag  the  good 
"  will  of  any  one  being  a  ftep  to  fear,  is  likewife  by  the  fame 
**  reafon,  a  degree  of  hatred  ;  unlefs  the  difirufl  proceed  to  fuch 
**  a  meafure  as  to  be  an  abfolute  fear  ;  for  then  the  coldnefs 
**  of  affe^lion  is  turned  into  perfett  hatred.  Wherefore  mm 
"'  thus  diftrufting  the  good  will  of  God  towards  liim,  confe- 
'*  quently  can  have  but  a  very  flight  affed^icn  to  him ;  yea,  he 
*'  wiii  even  become  his  enemy,  in  as  much  as  the  dillruft  iii 
•*  this  cafe  will  be  extremely  great*."  Thus  far  he  goes.  Now 
methinks  this  quite  overthrows  the  placability  he  had  before  af- 
ferted  difcoverable  by  the  light  of  nature,  at  leaft  as  to  any  ufe 
it  can  be  fuppofed  of  for  affuriag  finners  of  pardon,  cr  inviting 
them  to  repentance* 

1 1 .  But  to  go  a  ftep  further,  I  cannot  iee  that  the  light  of  nature 
is  able  to  give  us  any  affurance  of  this  placability*  Where  is 
it  in  the  book  of  nature  that  we  may  read  this  truth,  that  God 
is  placable?  Is  it  in  the  works  of  creation?  No,  this  is  not  pre- 
tended. Not  can  it  be,  they  were  all  abfolved  and  nnifned  bv?- 
fore  the  entrance  of  fin, and  cannot  be  fuppofed  to  carry  on  them 
any  impreiTions  of  placability  to  finners.  is  it  in  the  works  of 
providence?  Yes,  here  it  is  pretended.  And  what  is  it  in  the  Vvorks 
of  providence  that  is  alleged  to  evince  this  placability?  Is  it  that 
God  fparec  finners  for  fome  lime,  and  not  only  fo,  but  beftows 
many  outward  good  things  on  them,  whom  he  fpares?  Yes,  this 
3£  tliat  whereon  the  whole  flrefs  of  the  buiinefs  is  laid.  But  I 
cannot  fee  the  force  of  this  to  alfure  us  that  God  is  placable. 
For  I.   It   is  certain  that  the   nature   of  the  things   do  not  infer 

certainly 

*  Amyrald  of  Religions,  Part  2.  Chap.  17.  pag,  mihij  253,  254. 


rS3  AN    INQ^UIRY   IxN TO   THE         chap.  x. 

certainly  any  fuch  thing.  Forbearance  is  not  forgi /enefs:  nor 
cioes  it  intimate  any  defign  to  forgive.  It  may  be  exercifed, 
where  there  is  a  certain  defign  aud  fixed  purpofe  of  punifiiing. 
And  what  relation  have  a  few  ofthofe  outward  things,  whereby 
love  or  hatred  cannot  be  known,  unto  peace  and  reconciliation 
with  God?  It  i?;,  I  know,  pretended,  that  even  this  forbearance 
is  a  fort  of  forgivcnefs,  and  that  all  (he  world  (baring  in  it,  are 
in  fome  fort  forgiven.  So  Mr.  Baxter  fays.  If  this  learned 
perfon  or  any  other  has  a  mind  to  extend  the  notion  of  pardon 
10  far  as  to  include  even  reprieves  under  that  name,  we  cannot 
hinder  :  but  it  is  certain,  that  no  abatement  of  the  punifhment, 
far  lefs  the  difTolution  of  the  obligation,  which  is  that  ordinarily 
meant  by  pardon,  do  neced'arily  follow  upon,  or  is  included  in  a 
delay  of  punifrinient.  The  llownefs  in  execution,  which  may 
proceed  upon  many  grounds,  hid  in  the  depth  of  divine  Vv'if- 
dom  fronm  us,  may  be  more  than  compenfated  by  its  feverity 
when  incomes.  Leaden  Jeaif  as  fome  have  ufed  the  expreffion, 
may  bs  compe^i fated  by  iron  hands*  And  when  men  have  feri- 
ouUy  weighed  outward  good  things,  which  are  thrown  in  great- 
e(i  plenty  in  (lie  lap  of  the  moft  wicked,  and  are  full  of  vanitv 
and  commonly  enfnare,  they  can  fee  but  very  little  of  any  mercy 
defigned  them  thereby.  And  if  any  inference  toward  a  placa- 
bility is  deduciblc,  which  I  profefs  1  cannot  fee,  I  am  fure  that 
it  is  far  above  the  reach  of  not  a  few,  if  not  moft  of  mankind, 
to  make  the  dedu6^aon  and  trace  the  argument.  And  lb  it  can 
h?.  of  no  ufe  to  them.  2.  All  thofe  things  are  conliRent  with 
a  {^vAqxicz  landing  unrepealed  and  never  to  be  repealed,  if  ei- 
ther fcripture,  which  tells  us  that  God  exercifes  muck  long  fuf- 
/:-n ;?/;•,  and  gives  plenty  of  good  things  to  the  vejfcls  of  zuratk  ; 
or  reaibn,  which  affurcs  us  that  perfons  continuing  obfiinate  to 
the  b(^  in  fin,  cannot  evite  judgment,  m?.y  be  believed.  3.  As 
^-hcre  is  nothing  in  the  nature  cf  the  thuigs  that  cJin  afcertain  us 
cf  God's  placability,  mucli  lefs  is  tlicrc  any  in  the  condition  of 
*Mz  perfon,  to  whom  this  difpcnfation  is  exercifed.  Were 
tlicfe  bellowed  on  the  moll  virtuous,  or  were  there  an  Jncreafe 
of  them,  as  perfons  proceeded  fn  virtue,  and  came  nearer  and 
nearer  to  repentance  ;  or  were  there  on  the  other  hand  a  conti- 
nued evidence  of  wrath  and  implacability  towards  obftlnate  fin- 
ner'-.;  thio  then  would  fee m  to  fay  fomewhaf.  But  all  things  are 
quite  contrary,  tlie  worfl  have  the  mo(l  of  them,  and  the  beft 
have  commonlv  Ic^ll  of  them.  What  will  the  hnncr  fa}',  that 
God  is  inviting  nie  by  this  gcodnefs  to  virtue  ?  No,  if  I  fhould 

turn 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       189 

turn  virtuous  I  might  rather  expe6l  to  be  worfe  dealt  with.  That 
is  a  bootlefs  way  for  any  thing  I  can  ice  in  it.  Does  not  the 
fcripture  and  experience  tell  us,  that  thus  things  go,  and  that 
fuch  ufe  finners  have  made  of  this  difpenfation  ?  And  fo  dark 
is  it,  that  even  they  who  had  God's  mind  in  the  word  to  unrid- 
dle the  myftery,  have  been  ihaken  at  it  fo  far,  that  they  have 
been  upon  the  brink  of  apoflafy,  while  they  faw  the  way  of  fin- 
ners profper,  and  that  they  who  hate  God  wtit  exaltzd*  How 
then  can  unenlightened  reafon  draw  fuch  inferences  as  thefe 
learned  men  pretend  ?  Although  I  have  a  great  veneration  for 
thefe  learned  men  ;  yet  if  it  would  not  appear  prefumptuous  in 
one  fo  far  below  in  all  refpeds,  to  cenfure  his  fuperiors,  I 
would  take  the  liberty  to  fay,  that  in  this  matter  they  are  guil- 
ty of  a  double  miftake  :  Firil,  In  that  they  meafure  men's  abi- 
lities by  a  wrong  ftandard.  What  fuch  men  as  they  may  trace 
by  reafon,  many  men  are  under  not  only  a  moral,  but  even  a 
natural  incapacity  to  difcover.  It  is  certain,  befides  that  vail 
difference  which  is  in  the  capacities  of  men,  from  different  edu- 
cation and  circumflances,  whence  it  is  morally  impcffible  for 
one  who  wants  that  education,  and  other  occafions  and  advanta- 
ges which  another  has,  to  go  that  fame  length  and  trace  thefe 
difcoveries,  which  the  ether  who  had  education  and  cccallon 
may  do  :  there  is  likewife  vaft  difference  even  in  the  natural 
abilities  of  raen  (whether  that  arifes  from  their  bodies  or  fouls  I 
difpute  not  now,  nor  is  it  to  the  purpofe  ;  for  if  from  either  it 
is  ftiil  natural)  fo  that  one  has  not  a  natural  capacity  to  trace 
the  truths  that  others  may,  who  have  better  natural  abilities  : 
and  fo  it  is  naturally  impoflible  for  the  former  to  make  the  dif- 
coveries which  the  other  may.  And  I  fear  not  to  add,  that  if 
any  fuch  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  thefe  preraifes,  asthofe 
learned  perfons  pretend,  yet  many  are  under  a  natural  impoili- 
biiity  ;  and  the  moft  under  ir.fuperable  moral  incapacity  of  tra- 
cing thofe  difcoveries.  And  if  it  be  allowed  that  any  man^ 
without  his  own  fault,  is  under  an  incapacity  of  making  fucli 
deductions,  about  the  placability  of  God,  from  thefe  difpenfa- 
tions  of  providence,  which  1  think  cannot  modcOly  be  denied, 
the  whole  plea  about  placability  will  prove  not  only  unfervice- 
able  to  the  deifts,  but,  if  I  miftake  it  not,  unmeet  to  maintain 
that  ftation  for  which  it  is  defigned,  in  the  hypothefis  of  the 
learned  afferters  of  this  opinion.  Another  miiUke  I  think  thole 
perfons  guilty  of,  is,  that  men  whofe  minds  are  not  enlighten- 
ed   by  revelation,  may  poffibly  trace  thofe  difcoveries,  v^'hich 

thev 


190  AN  INCtUiRY    INTO    THE         ghap.  x. 

they  who  are  guided  by  it  may  read  in  the  book  of  nature. 
4.  I  add,  ifthefe  things  whei'eon  they  infift,  as  difcoveries  of 
this  placability  iti  God,  ferve  to  laife  any  fufjiicions  of  that 
fort  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  this  is  the  moft  that  can  be  rea- 
lonabiy  pretended,  for  demonftration  they  do  not  amount  unto, 
they  are  quite  funk  by  the  contrary  evidences  of  God's  feveri- 
iy  ;  which  muR  have  (o  much  of  force,  in  as  much  as  they  moft 
commonly  befall  the  moft  virtuous,  which  heightens  the  fufpi- 
cion.  And  befides,  as  we  heard  Amyrald  obferve,  the  minds 
of  finners,  who  are  convinced  in  any  meafure  of  fin,  who  are 
yet  the  only  perfons  that  will  think  themfeives  concerned  in 
this  matter,  are  much  more  inclined  to  entertain  fufpicions 
Jhan  good  thoughts  of  him,  whom  they  have  oftended,  and  who, 
as  their  cqnfciences  affure  them,  hates  their  offences.  5.  That 
v/hich  puts  the  cope-lfone  upon  our  mifery,  and  concludes  us 
imder  d.^rknefs,  is  that  nature's  light  has  no  help  to  guide  us 
pver  thefe  dimculties  laid  in  our  way,  from  any  known  inflan- 
ces  of  any  perfons  led  to  repentance  by  thefe  means,  or  par- 
doned on  their  repentance.  So  that  upon  the  whole,  I  cannot 
iee  fuflicient  evidence  of  this  piacAbility  in  the  light  of  nature. 
12.  If  it  is  alleged  here,  that  if  God  had  no  defign  of  mercy 
',n  fparing  the  world,  it  is  perfe6^ly  unintelligible  why  he. did  it. 
In  anfwer  to  this,  it  is  to  be  obferved,that  we  do  not  lay  that  God 
had  no  defign  of  mercy  in  fparing  the  world,  but  that  this  his 
forbearance  of  the  world  is  not  a  fufficient  proof  and  evidence 
of  this  defign;  and  that  nature's  light  can  give  no  falisfying 
account  of  the  reafon  of  this  difpenfation  of  God.  So  dark  was  this 
to  fuch  as  had  no  other  light  but  that  of  reafon,  that  the  moft 
part  laid  afide  thoughts  of  it  as  a  thing  above  their  reach;  and 
the  more  thoughtful  knew  not  what  judgment  to  make,  but  were 
confounded  and  perplexed  in  their  thoughts.  They  underflood 
not  what  occount  was  to  be  made  of  God's  producing  fo  many 
fucceilive  generations  of  men,  and  tolling  them  betwixt  love 
;nid  hatred,  hope  and  fear,  by  fuch  a  Grange  mixture  of  good 
and  evil  ;  elfeds  of  his  bounty  and  evidences  of  his  anger. 
Yea  fo  far  were  they  confounded,  that  fbme  of  them  came  the 
icngth  to  fet  God  afide  from  the  government  of  the  world. 
No  Icfs  a  perfon  than  Seneca  introduces  God,  telHog  good 
men,  **  That  he  could  not  help  their  calamities."  Anti  Pli- 
ny acrafes  God,  under  the  notion  of  nature^  of  no  good  de- 
fign, "  Natural y  quafi  magna  ^  f^va  merctde  contra  ianta 
^^  pisb  muntrii  !)fum ;  ita  ut  ncnjatisfii  ^Jiimarty  parens  7ndior 

**  hominL 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      igi 

"  hominij  an  triftior  noverca  fuerit ;"  id  ejl,  "  Nature  has  {o 
**  cruelly  counterbalanced   its  largeft  gifts  with  horrible  evils, 
**  that  it  is  hard  to  fay ,  whether  it  is  not  a  fad  or  cruel  ftep-reother 
**  rather  than  a  kindly  parent  to  man."  So  that  in  fa6^,  men  were 
thus  fpared  and  left  in  this  dark  condition,  as  to  the  reafons  of 
God's  difpenfations,  is  evident  from  experience.     The  reafons 
of  this  condud  are  to  be  fought  in  the  depth  of  the  wifdom  and 
fovereign  juftice  of  God.    Chriflians  whoare  found  in  the  faith, 
will  own,    that  all  who  belonged  to  the  elecSiicn  of  grace  could 
not  have  come  into  being,  if  the  world  had  not  been  thus  fpared. 
They  will  own  that  the  world  could  not  have  been  preferved  in 
any  order,  without  thefe  efJec^s  both  of  bounty  and  feverity, 
whereby  fome  reftraint  was  put  on  the  lufis  of  men,  and  feme 
government    kept  up  among  them,  and  they  were  kept  from 
running  to  fuch  a  height  in  (in,  as  would  have  made  it  impciTi- 
ble  for  God,  with  any  confiftency  to  his  juftice,  holinefs  or  wif- 
dom to  have  preferved  the  woild,  till  his  defign  in  its  prcferva- 
tion  was  reached.     And  it  may  be  faid  further,  for  the  fatisfac- 
tion  of  Chriftians    (for  the  deifts  have   no  concern  in  this  ac- 
count, which  is  bottomed  on  the  revelation  they  deny).  That  if 
God  had  fecn  meet  to  make  all  that  belonged  to  Adam's  cove- 
nant   at   once,  they   could   not  have  refufed  to  ccnfent  to  the 
placing  their  happinefs  on  that  bottom  whereon  he  placed  it  in 
the    tr3nfa6\ion   with   Adam,  and  could   not   have  condemned 
God  for  executing  the   fentence  upon  all  im.mediately  upon  the 
breach  of  it.     And   therefore  I  think  they  have  no  reafon  to 
quarrel  God's  keeping  them  out  of  hell  for  a  while.     Further, 
God  in  his  wifdom,  by  leaving  fo  many  in  this  dark  cafe  for  fo 
many  ages,  has  let  them  fee  the  ihortnefs  of  their  wifdom  todlf- 
entangle  them  from  that  mifery,  whereunto  by  fin  they  were  in- 
volved.    It  was   in  the  wifdom  of  God,  that  the  world  by  wif- 
dom knew  not  God,     Finally,  this  fliould  make  us  welcome  the 
gofpel,  which  only  can  difpel  the  darknefs  we  are  under,  as  to 
the  whole   ftate  of  matters  betwixt  God  and  us,  and  lead  us  to 
life  and  immortality,  and  mercy,  pardoning  mercy,  which  the 
dim  light  of  nature  could  never  difcoverto  us. 

Now  if  we  confider  what  has  been  above  difcourfed,  it  will 
be  found  that  we  have  made  confiderable  advances  towards  a 
derifion  of  that  which  is  in  debate. 

We  have  cleared  what  that  repentance  is,  which  with  any 
fhew  of  reafon  can  be  pretended  available  in  the  prefcnt  cafe. 

We  have  evinced  that  the  placability  of  God,  of  which  fome 

^  ^  talk 


jgz  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE        cha^.  x, 

talk,  were  it  difcoverable  by  nature's  light,  is  not  fufficientto 
bring  men  to  this  repentance. 

Further,  we  have  made  it  appear,  that  the  evidences  of  this 
placability  brought  from  nature's  light  are  not  conciufive. 

But  were  all  this  given  up,  which  v/e  fee  no  caufc  to  do,  the 
principal  point  is  ftill  behind,  viz.  **  Whether  nature's  light  can 
**  afcertain  us  that  all  penitent  finncrs  fliall  be  pardoned  upon 
**  their  repentance,"  This  the  deiils  maintain,  and  we  deny. 
Their  all'ertion,  **  that  the  light  of  nature  alTures  us  that  peni- 
**  tent  finners  upon  their  repentance  (hall  afl'uredly  be  for- 
*'  given,"  is  that  which  v^e  (hall  next  take  under  conlideration, 
and  demonftrate  to  be  groundlefs,  falfe  and  abfurd,  by  the  enfu- 
ing  arguments. 

J.  I  reafon  againfl:  it  from  the  nature  of  pardon.  Forgive- 
nefs  or  pardon  is  a  free  a6i  of  God's  will.  It  is  a  freeing  of  the 
finner  from  the  obligation  he  lies  under  to  punifliment,  by  vir- 
tue of  the  penal  fanflion  of  that  righteous  and  jul^  law  which 
he  has  violated.  All  divine  laws  are  unqueliionably  equal, 
juft,  and  righteous,  and  their  penal  fanclions  are  fo  too.  Cer- 
tainly therefore  God  may  jufWy  infli6l  the  puniQiment  contained 
in  the  fand^ion  of  the  law  upon  the  tranfgrelTors  ;  and  confe- 
quenlly,  we  may  without  fear  infer,  that  to  relieve  him  from 
that  penalty  is  a  moft  free  ad,  to  which  God  was  not  ncceffarily 
obliged.  And  indeed,  though  all  this  had  not  been  faid,  the 
thing  is  in  itfelf  clear  ;  for  we  can  frame  no  other  notion  of  for- 
givenefs  than  this,  **  That  it  is  a  voluntary  and  free  aft  of 
grace,  which  remits  the  punilhment,  and  Icofes  the  fmner  from 
that  punilhment  he  juilly  deferved,  and  which  the  lawgiver 
might  juftly  have  infli<Sled  on  him."  Now  this  being  clear,  we 
infer,  that  fuch  a(Sts  cannot  be  known  otherwife  than,  either  by 
revelation,  that  is  God's  declaring  hirnfelf  exprefsly  to  this  pur- 
pofe,  or  by  the  desd  itfelf,  fome  pofiiive  a6l  of  forgivenefs, 
which  is  the  effe^Sl  of  fuch  a  purpofe.  The  deifts  difown  and 
deny  any  revelation.  And  for  any  e(Fe6l  declarative  of  fuch  a 
purpofe,  we  fhall  challenge  the  world  to  produce  it.  There 
never  was,  nor  is  any  one  perfon,  of  whom  we  can  certainly 
afiirm,  upon  the  information  only  of  nature's  light,  that  God 
has  forgiven  him,  either  upon  repentance  or  without  out.  And 
if  there  were  fuch  perfons,  it  would  not  bear  the  weight  of  a 
grneral  conclufion,  that  bccauie  God  has  done  it  to  them, 
therefore  he  will  do  it  to  all,  in  all  other  inllances. 

n.  I   reafcn  againU  this  fuppofed  conftitution   from  the  ex- 
tent 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       193 

tent  of  it,  that  God  will  pardon  all  penitent  finners.  If 
this  is  not  faid,  he  pardons  none  upon  their  penitence  :  for  if 
any  penitent  (inner  can  be  fuppofed  to  remain  unpardoned, 
why  may  not  all  ?  Befides,  if  a  penitent  finner  is  punilhed,  then 
it  mull  be  upon  fomewhat  elfe  than  penitence,  that  he  who 
is  pardoned  obtains  remiiTion.  For  if  mere  penitence  had  been 
fufficicnt,  a  pentient  could  not  have  fufFered.  Now  if  all  pe- 
nitent (inners  are  forgiven,  and  nature's  light  affures  them  that 
they  fhail  be  forgiven,  then  the  extent  of  this  conftituiion  is 
very  large.  For,  i.  It  makes  void  the  penal  fanction  of  the 
law  as  to  all  fins,  however  atrocious  they  are,  if  the  (inner  is 
only  a  penitent.  2.  It  extends  to  all  ages,  places,  and  genera- 
lions  of  men,  that  ever  have  been,  or  (hall  be  in  the  world. 
3.  It  reaches  to  all  forts  of  perfons,  even  thofe  who  are  in 
a  capacity  to  introduce  the  greatefl  diforders  into  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  as  well  as  the  meaneft  offenders.  Well 
then,  the  delfts  mart  miintain  that  it  is  thus  enatSled,  and  this 
a6l  or  conflitution  is  in  all  this  extent  publicly  declared 
by  the  light  of  nature,  fo  that  all  may  know  it.  4.  It  reach- 
es to  all  fins,  part,  prefent,  and  to  come;  they  fhall  all  be 
forgiven,  if  the  finner  does  only  repent.  Now  agalnft  fuch 
an  cxtenfive  conftitution,  we  offer  the  following  confidera- 
tions: 

(i.)  All  wife  governors,  who  have  any  regard  to  the 
honour  of  their  laws,  aurhority,  and  governments,  ufe  to  be 
very  fparing  in  indemnifying  tranfgreffion.  And  no  won- 
der they  fliould ;  for  wife  and  juft  rulers  are  not  wont  to  e- 
na6t  penalties,  but  in  proportion  to  offences-  And  therefore  a 
paffing  eafily  from  them  tends  to  make  tranfgreffion  cheap,  and 
weaken  the  conftitution,  and  fo  diiToive  the  government.  Now 
God  is  no  lefs  tender  of  the  honour  of  thofe  laws,  which  ena6l 
nothing  but  what  is  the  tranfcript  of  his  ov/n  righteous  nature, 
and  the  oppofite  whereof  he  has  the  deepeft  abhorrency  of,  as 
contrary  to  the  fame.  And  can  we  then  reafonably  fuppofe  him 
to  be  fo  lavllfi  of  forglvenefsas  to  eftablifh  it  in  fo  ftrange  an  ex- 
tent? I  believe  it  will  be  hard  for  any  thinking  man  to  judge 
fo. 

(2.)  In  all  well  ordered  governments  pardon  is  a  particular 
26t  of  grace,  reftri«5led  to  fome  time,  place  and  perfcn  ;  yea  and 
crimes  too:  and  therefore  Is  never  cxtf!^nded  fo  univerfally  as 
here  it  is,  and  if  it  is  to  the  purpofe,  mull:  be  aif^rted.  So  that 
the  common  rcafon  of  mankind  declares  agalaft  fuch  aconflitu- 

A  a  tion  ; 


104  AN    IxNQ^UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  x. 

tlon  :  for  what  is  or  may  be  pretended  of  impenitent  finners  be- 
ing excluded,  is  in  very  deed,  no  refiric^ion  of  the  law  indem- 
nifying tranfgrefTors  of  whatever  fort,  that  are  but  willing  to  be 
indemnified.  For  impenitent  finners  are  they  only  who  have 
no  will  to  be  pardoned,  or  who  will  not  accept  of  favour.  Now 
to  indemnify  all  that  are  willing  to  be  pardoned  is  a  very  odd 
confiitution.  And  before  I  afcribe  this  to  the  wnfdom  of  the 
great  Ruler  of  the  world,  I  mud  fee  better  reafons  than  I  am  ^ 
ever  like  to  fee  in  this  cafe. 

(3.)  No  wife  government  ever  enabled  pardon  of  fuch  an  uni- 
verfal  extent,  without  further  fecurity  for  the  honour  of  the 
government,  into  a  perpetual  and  (landing  Jaw.  Pardon  and 
acts  of  grace  area  p"  t  cf  the  fovereignty  of  the  governor: 
and  however  he  may  make  them  very  extenfivc  fometimes  ;  yet 
he  always  referves  it  fo  in  his  own  power,  that  it  lliall  after- 
wards be  voluntary  and  free  to  him  to  forgive  or  not  as  he  Ihall ' 
Ice  caufe, 

(4.)  Sucha  conditution  is  efpecially  irreconcileable  with  wif- 
dom  and  equity,  If  it  is  extended  to  tranfgreflions  not  yet  com- 
mitted ;   for  in  that  cafe  it  looks  like  an  invitation  to  fin. 

(5.)  And  this  binds  more  ftrongly,  if  the  perfons  are  ftrong- 
iy  inclined  to  fin. 

(6.)  More  efpecially  fuch  a  conftitution  is  never  to  be  recon- 
ciled with  wifdom,  if  it  is  univerfally  made  known  and  publifh- 
ed  without  any  provifion  made  for  the  fecuring  of  the  honour  of 
the  law,  againlt  any  abufe  of  fuch  grace.  Now  I  defire  to 
know  if  nature's  light  difcovers  fuch  an  a6l  and  declaration  of 
grace.  Where  is  there  any  care  taken,  or  any  provifos  in- 
ferted  in  the  declaration  that  can  evidence  the  regard  which 
God  has  for  his  laws,  and  fecure  againft  the  abufe  of  fuch  kind- 
nels?  Indeed  the  fcripture  difcovery  of  mercy  to  penitent  fin- 
ners, on  accourjt  of  Chrifl's  fatisfaction,  fully  removes  all  thofc 
difficulties  wfiich  otherwife,  fo  far  as  T  can  fee,  are  never  to  be 
removed  :  And  therefore  I  can  never  fee  how  fuch  a  declaration 
coiiid  be  made  without  the  concomitant  difcovery  of  a  fatisfa6\ion 
to  jufiice,  and  reparation  of  the  honour  of  the  lawgiver  and  law, 
and  fecurity  againR  abufe  of  grace.  Remarkable  to  this  purpofe 
are  the  words  of  the  learned  and  judicious  Dr.  How  :  **  That 
**  prince  would  certainly  never  be  fo  much  magnifi.ed  for  his 
**  clemency  and  mercy,  as  he  would  be  defpifed  by  all  the 
**  world,  for  mofi  remarkable  dcfetMs  of  government,  that 
*'   ihould  not  on4y  pardon  whofoevcr  of  his  fubjeds  had  ofTend- 

**  cd 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       195 

<*  ed  him,  upon  their  being  forry  for  it  ;  but  go  about  to  pro- 
*«  vide,  that  a  law  (hould  obtain  in  his  dominions,  through  2II 
**  after  time,  that  whofoever  fhould  offend  againft  the  govern- 
**  ment,  with  whatloever  infolency,  maligniiy  and  frequency, 
*♦  if  they  repented,  they  (hould  never  be  punilhed,  but  be  taken 
*'  forthwith  into  highefl  favour.  Admit  that  it  had  been  con- 
**  gruous  to  the  wifdom  and  rightcoufnefs  of  God,  as  well  as  his- 
"  goodnefs,  to  have  pardoned  a  particular  fmner,  upon  repent- 
**  ance,  without  latisfad^ion  ;  yet  nothing  could  have  been  more 
**  apparently  unbecoming  him,  than  to  fettle  an  univerfal  law 
**  for  all  future  time,  to  that  purpofe,  that  let  as  many  as  would, 
**  in  any  age  to  the  world's  end,  affront  him  never  fo  highly, 
'*  invade  his  rights,  trample  on  his  authority,  and  tear  the  con- 
"  ftitution  of  his  government,  they  fhould  upon  their  repentance 
**  be  forgiven,  and  not  only  not  be  puniflied,  but  be  moft  high- 
<*  ly  advanced,  and  dignified."  Thus  far  he.  In  the  fubfequent 
paragraph  he  learnedly  and  judicioufly  fhews  the  difference 
in  the  gofpcl  propofal  of  mercy  to  offenders,  from  this  fuppofcd 
cafe  of  forgivenefs  without  fatisfa6fion. 

3.  1  inquire,  whether  is  it  poflible  that  there  may  be  any  crime 
fo  atrocious,  that  it  may  be  poiTible  for  God,  in  a  congruity  with 
vhis  perfedion,  to  punifh,  notwithf^anding  of  the  intei  vention  of 
repentance?  If  there  may  be  any  fuch,  then  certainly  it  is  not 
merely  on  account  of  repentance  that  fm  is  pardoned  :  and  fo  a 
penitent  cannot  always  be  fure  of  forgivenefs.  Further,  confi- 
dering  how  grievous  and  finful  every  tranfgreflion  of  God's  law 
is,  how  can  1  be  fure  what  fins  are  pardonable  upon  repentance 
and  what  not?  If  it  is  not  poflible  tor  God  to  puniili  any  pe- 
nitent, then  I.  I  would  inquire  what  fo  great  matter  is  there  in 
repentance,  that  can  bind  God  up  from  vindicating  his  lionour 
againft  affronts  already  offered?  2,  To  what  purpofe  was  the 
penal  fa6fion  fince,  in  the  cafe  it  was  defigned?  For  when  the 
law  is  tranfgrelTed,  it  may  not  poflTibly  take  place  but  the  ex- 
ecution is  inconfiftent  with  the  nature  of  God.  3.  How  will 
this  impoffibiiity  ever  be  proven  ?  Repentarice  hath  nothing  in 
it  fo  great  to  infer  it :  for  in  repentance  no  more  can  be  alleged 
but  a  return  to  duty  antecedently  due.  And  as  to  this,  we  are 
unprofitable  fervants.  And  Chrifl  has  told  us  what  reafon  tells 
us  alfo,  that  v/e  defcrve  no  thanks  for  it.  And  as  tor  the  otlier 
part,  forrow  for  by-gones,  it  is  the  ncccLfary  relult  of  that  re- 
gard 
*  Living  Temple,  Part  2.  pag.  327. 


igS  AN   INCLUIRY   INTO    THE        cha?.  x, 

gard  to  the  Deity,  and  knowledge  of  our  own  fin,  that  is  like- 
wiib  our  own  duty.  Now  what  is  there,  in  all  this,  that  ftiould 
be  ruppofed  to  be  of  {o  great  worth,  that  it  muft  inevitably  ftop 
the  courle  of  juflice  ? 

But  here  it  may  be  obje6led,  not  only  by  deifts,  but  fome, 
who  are  very  far  from  favouring  them,  **  That  pod  cannot  caft 
•'  away  from  his  love  and  felicity  any  foul,  which  truly  loveth 

him  above  all,  and  which  fo  repenteth  of  his  fin,  as  to  return 

to  God  in  holinefs  in  heart  and  life.*" 

I  anfwer,  i.  The  fuppofition  that  a  finner  convinced  of  fin 
can  repent  without  fome  fecurity  given  as  to  pardon,  can  love 
God  above  all,  and  fo  repent,  as  to  turn  to  holinefs  in  heart  and 
life,  appears  fo  me  impoffible.  Much  lefs  is  it  poffible  that  an 
unconvinced  finner  can  repent.  The  reafon  is  plain,  a  clear 
convid^ion  of  fin  inevitably  lays  us  under  the  decpeft  fear  of 
Gcd,  and  dread  of  puniihment  from  him,  which  not  only  calls, 
out  that  love,  but  draws  on  hatred,  or  at  leafl,  flrong  averfion  ; 
as  vre  heard  the  learned  Amyraid  well  obfcrve  in  the  words  be- 
fore quoted.  Now  it  is  certain,  th^t  fuppofe  one  impoflTibility, 
twenty  will  follow.  2.  If  the  thing  is  not  impoffible,  which  I 
think  it  is,  yet  certainly  it  is  a  cafe  that  never  happened,  and  is 
never  like  to  happen.  3.  Suppofing  it  poffible,  it  is  a  very  bold 
afTertion,  that  no  crime,  how  atrocious  ioever,  would  juftify  the 
inflicting  of  the  penalty  contained  in  the  righteous  ian6\ion  of 
the  law.  4.  Much  Icil  then  is  it  hard  to  fuppofe  that  it  would 
judify  God's  denying  any  reward  to  the  finner,  that  he  has  i'o 
finned.  And  if  it  is  granted  that  penitence  does  not  ncceflari- 
]y  reflore  to  a  profpe61  of  reward,  all  religion  and  encourage- 
ment to  it  is  loft.  1  cannot  forbear  quoting  again  the  accurate 
and  judicious  Dr.  How's  words,  who  after  he  has  fhown  that  our 
offences  againft  God  incomparably  tranfcend  the  meafyre  of 
any  otience  that  can  be  done  by  one  creature  againft  another, 
prefently  fubjoins,  **  Yea,  and  as  it  can  never  be  thought  con- 
**  gruous,  that  iuch  an  offence  againfl:  a  human  governor, 
**  ihould  be  pardoned,  without  the  intervening  repentance  of 
**  the  delinquent;  fo  we  may  cafily  apprehend  alfo  the  cafe  to 
'*  be  fuch,  35  that  it  cannot  be  fit,  it  Ihould  be  pardoned  on  that 
*'  alone,  without  other  recompence  f:"  whereof  if  any  fnould 
doubt,  1  would  demand,  is  it,  in  any  cafe,  fit,  that  a  penitentdelin- 

qucnt 

f  J^axtcr's  ReafonsofChria,  Relig.  Fart  i.  pag.  184,   18B. 
T  Living  Tenaple,  Part  2,  psg,  240. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        197 

oucnt  againft  human  laws  and  government  ftiould  be  puniftied, 
or  a  proportionable  rccompencc  be  exa6^ed  for  his  offence  not- 
withftanding  ?  Surely  it  will  be  acknowledged  ordinarily  fit  ; 
and  who  would  take  upon  him  to  be  the  cenlor  of  the  common 
juftice  of  the  world  in  all  fuch  cafes  !  Or  to  condemn  the  pro- 
ceedings of  all  times  and  nations,  wherefoever  a  penitent  offender 
hath  been  made  to  fuffer  the  legal  puniftiment  of  his  offence, 
notwilhftanding  his  repentance?  How  Grange  a  maxim  of  go- 
vernment would  that  be,  That  it  is  never  fit  that  an  offender,  of 
whatfoever  kind,  (hould  be  punilhed,  if  he  repent  himfelf  of  his 
offence  !  And  furely,  if  ever,  in  any  cafe,  iomewhat  elfe  than 
repentance  be  fitly  infiflcd  on  as  a  recompence,  for  the  viola- 
tion of  the  facred  rights  of  government,  it  may  well  be  fuppof- 
ed  much  more  fo  in  the  cafe  of  man's  common  delinquency  and 
revolt  from  God. 

4.  I  reafon  againft  this  pofition,  from  the  confideration  of  the 
imperfection  of  this  repentance,  which,  as  it  takes  place  amongft 
fmful  men,  is  guilty  of  a  double  imperfection.  Our  forrow  and 
our  return  are  imperfect,  in  refpe6l  of  degrees.  Our  relation 
to  God  and  his  to  us  requires  the  higheft,  the  moft  perfe6l  love 
and  the  moft  cordial  obedience.  No  lefs  will  anfwer  our  ob- 
ligations. And  our  forrow,  if  it  is  required,  muft  be  fuppofed 
likewife  to  be  fuch  as  refults  neceffarily  from  fuch  a  love.  Now 
what  can  be  more  evident  than  this,  that  none  of  the  children 
of  men  love  God  as  they  ought,  and  with  that  Intention  and 
vehemency,  which  anfwcrs  their  original  obligation  ?  And  con- 
fequently  their  forrow  and  obedience  can  never  come  up  to  it  : 
for  they  being  the  refult  of  this  love,  can  never  go  beyond  the 
principle,  which  influences  them.  Again,  our  return  is  liable  to 
another  imperfedion,  even  a  frequent  interruption.  The  cafe 
is  not  thus,  that  we  only  once,  through  infirmijy,  make  an  ef- 
cape  ;  but  even  after  our  fuppofed  return,  it  muft  be  allowed 
that  there  will  be  after-deviations.  And  hence  it  becomes  a 
queftion,  how  can  we  expect  acceptance  in  our  returns?  Kow 
can  our  repentance,  which  anfwers  not  the  demands  of  the  law, 
and  our  ties  to  duty  be  accepted  for  itfclf  ?  And  if  fo,  much 
more  may  it  be  a  qucftion,  how  can  it  be  allowed  fufficient  to 
atone  forother  tranfgrefFions,  yea,  how  can  it  be  fufficient  to  atone 
for  tranfgrcffions,  which  it  takes  no  notice  of?  For  there  are  fuch 
fins  as  by  the  light  of  nature  we  are  never  likely  to  reach  the 
conviction  of ;  and  therefore  it  is  impoffible  we  (hould  forrow 
for  them,  or  repent  of  them?  However  men  may  pleafe  them- 

felves 


iqB  an   inquiry   into   the      chap.  x. 

felves  with  a  fancy  of  the  fufficlency  of  their  repentanre  ;  yet  a 
iinner,  that  undeiftands  his  own  cafe,  will  never  be  able  to  fa- 
tisfy  his  own  confcience  in  this  matter. 

1  know  it  is  pleaded,  **  That  we  have  a  harder  province 
**  to  adminiftcr  than  even  the  angels  thetufelves  ;  they  not  ha* 
*'  ving  lb  grofs  a  body  as  we  have,  nor  expofed  to  i'o  much  evil 
*'  as  we  are.  But  God  he  knoweth  our  frame,  and  upon  that 
**  account  is  not  extreme  to  mark  what  is  done  amifs.  A  crea- 
•*  ture,  as  a  creature,  is  finite  and  fallible  :  and  yet  we  are 
**  not  the  moft  perfe(?t  of  God's  creation.  Now,  for  fallible  to 
**  fail,  is  no  more  than  for  frail  to  be  broken  ;  and  mortal  to 
**  die.  Where  there  is  finite  and  limited  perfection,  there 
'*  is  not  only  a  poilibility,  but  a  contingency  to  fail,  to  err,  to 
**  be  miftakcn,  not  to  know  and  to  be  deceived,  And  where 
**  the  agent  is  fuch,  there  is  place  for  repentance.  Re- 
*^  pentance  is  that  which  makes  a  finite  being  failing,  capa- 
**  bie  of  compaffion.  If  repentance  did  not  take  efFe6l,  it 
**  would  be  too  hazardous  for  a  creature  to  come  into  be- 
**  ing.  If  upon  a  lapfe,  an  error,  or  miflake,  we  fhould  be 
"  undone  to  eternity,  without  all  hope  of  recovery  ,*  who  would 
**  willingly  enter  upon  this  ftate  *?"  Thus  fpeaks  Dr.  Wich- 
cot. 

To  this  plaufible  difcourfe  we  anfwer.  Either  this  reafoning 
proceeds  upon  the  ftate  of  things,  according  to  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  refpe£ls  them  who  have  laid  hold  on  it,  or  it  does 
not.  If  it  does  proceed  on  this  footing,  we  fay  it  helps  not  the  de- 
ifts  :  but  if,  as  it  feems,  it  be  extended  further,  then  I  fhall  make 
the  following  remarks  on  it.  i.  Although  we  have  here  maoy 
things  prettily  faid,  yet  I  cannot  but  deeply  diflike  the  dif- 
courfe, bccaufe  it  aims  at  the  extenuation  of  fin,  and  pleads  its 
cxcufe  from  our  frailty.  Now,  befidcs  that  this  bears  hard  up- 
on the  Author  of  our  conflitution,  as  if  he  had  made  it  unequal 
to  the  laws  he  impofed  on  it,  it  is  a  fociifii  argument,  becaufe 
the  cafe  may  be  as  much  exaggerated  on  the  other  hand  by  Uie 
reprefenting  the  greatnefs  of  the  lawgiver,  the  equality  of  the 
]?.ws,  and  the  ability  of  man,  at  leaft  in  his  firft  make  to  obey. 
And  the  one  wilt  not  fignify  more  to  give  us  hope  of  forgive- 
nefs  on  our  repentance,  rhan  the  other  will  to  make  us  defpair 
of  it.  2.  It  feems  to  refleft  on  God's  difFerent  rondu6t  with 
the  angels  that  finned,  who  had  no  place  allowed  them  for  re- 
pentance : 

*  Dr.  Which  cot's  fdefl  Sermons,  Part  2.  Serni.  2d,  on  Afts  xiii. 
38.  pag.  322,   323. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      tgg 

pentance:  for  iheir  frame  was  finite,  and  fo  frail  and  failable. 
The  little  difference  from  the   grofl'nefs  of  our  bodies,  if  man 
is  not  fuppofed  corrupt,  and  his  body  inclined    to   evil,  makes 
no  difference  that  can  fatisfy  ;  for  ftill  we  were  under  no  ne- 
ceflity  of  finning  from  our  conftitution,  if  it  is  not  fuppofed  to 
be  corrupt.     But  to  pretend  that  man  was  made  corrupt,  carries 
our  frailty  too  far,  to  make    it  God's  deed.     We  cannot   plead 
in  excufe,  any  defects  in  our  conftitution,  that  God  put  not  there. 
3.  It  condemns  all  human  laws  that  fpares  not  penitent  tranf- 
greffors.  If  it  be  faid,  that  they  are  under  a  neceflity  to  do  it ;  I 
anfwer,  whence  does  this  neceflity  arife  ?  Is  the  honour  of  the 
divine  law  lefs  dear  to  him,  and  of  lefs   confideration  than  the 
honour  and  rights  of  human  conftitutions  and  governments  £* 
But  further,  I  defire  to  know,  will  neceflity  juftify  the  punifli- 
ment  of  the  penitent  ?  If  not,  then  here  it  doth  not  juftify  :  if 
it  doth,  who  will  aflure  me  that  there  is  not  as  great  a  neceffity 
for  this  courfe  in   divine  as   human  governments  ;    at  leafl  in 
fome  inftances  ?  And  if  in  any  inflancc  the  puniftiment  of  a  pe- 
nitent may  take  place,  who  will  condefcend  where  it  may,  and 
where  not  ?  How  likewife  can  it  be  faid  that  penitence  fecures 
pardon?  Further,  4.  I  fay  dire6^1y  to  the  argument.  If  divine 
Jaw  s  are  as  much  adjufted  to  man's  power,  as  the  conflitutions 
and  laws  of  human  government  are,  (and  that  they  behoved  to 
be   fo,  with  refped  to  his  power   in  his  firft  conftitution  has 
been  made  appear)  then  it  is  no  more   hazardous  to  come  into 
being,  than  to  enter  into  human  fociety,  where  frail  man  may, 
for  a  word  or  a  deed,  forfeit  his  own  life  to  juftice  and  all  the  ad- 
vantages of  it,  and  beggar  his  pofterity,  and  that  without  any 
profpe(5l  of  relief  by  his  repentance.     If  it    be  faid,  that  the 
punifliraents  arc   greater  in   this  cafe  ;  I  grant  it :  fo  are  the 
laws  too,  and  confequently  the  tranfgreffions  ;  and  fo  likewife 
are  the  advantages  of  obedience  ;  and  without   an  injurious  re- 
flexion on  God,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  laws  are,  as  well 
at  leaft,  attempered  to  man's  abilities  wherewith  he  was  created 
and  fubjedled  to  them.  5.  I  do  not  fee  how  it  can  be  injuflice  to 
infli(Sl  a  juft  puniftiment  upon  ti-anfgreirors,and  fuch  of  neceffity, 
that  is,  which  is  included  in   the  fanftion   of  the  divine  laws. 
Nor  does  repentance  make  that  execution  unjuft  ;  which,  with- 
out it,  is  allowed  not  only  juft,    but  indifpenfibly   neceffary. 
This  I  might  largely  ftiew,  but  others  have  done  it  before  *. 

5.  The 
°  See  Specimen  Refutationis  Crcllii,  pag.  100,  lOJ,  &  fequ. 


2:oo  AN   INQ.UIRY   INTO    THE      ghap.  x. 

5.  The  falfehood  of  this  propofition  may  be  further  evi- 
denced from  the  nature  of  the  juftice  of  God,  that  feems  ne- 
cefl'arily  to  require  that  fin  be  puniftied.  For  clearing  this, 
1  (hall  make  the  cnfuing  obfervations :  in  doing  which  wc 
ihall  aim  at  fuch  a  gradual  progreffion  as  may  fet  the  matter  in 
the   beft  h'ght. 

(i.)  Juftice  Hriclly  taken,  is  *'  that  virtue  of  the  rational 
nature,  whofe  bufinefs  it  is  to  preferve,  maintain,  and  be  a  guar- 
dian of  the  rights  of  rational  beings."  It  is  commonly  defined 
a  **  conftant  and  abiding  or  fixed  will  of  giving  to  every  one 
what  is  their  right  or  due."  Whence  it  has  been  debated,  whe- 
ther in  man  there  is  any  fuch  thing  as  felf-juftice  ;  becaufe,  ac- 
cording to  this  account  of  juftice,  it  feems  to  be  reftri6\ed  to  the 
rights  of  others.  And  this  reftriclion  has  countenance  given  to 
it  from  that  common  maxim,  that  volenti  nonfit  injuria^ y  which 
is  founded  in  this,  that  a  man  is  fuppofed  capable  of  parting, 
without  wrong,  with  his  own  rights,  and  confequently  is  not 
capable  of  injuftice  towards  himfelf.  It  is  true,  man  has  no 
rights,  which  he  may  not  deprive  himfelf  of  by  his  ovi\i 
confent.  Yet  fince  man  has  fuch  rights,  though  they  are  but 
derived  ones,  as  alfo  his  being  is,  as  he  cannot  deprive  himJelf 
of  without  fault,  I  fee  not  but  even  fuch  a  thing  as  felf-juflice 
may  take  place  among  men  :  but  whatever  the  cafe  be  as  to 
men,  there  is  certainly  in  God  to  be  allowed  fuch  a  thing  as 
felf-juftice.     For  clearing  of  which,  I  obferve, 

(2.)  That  God,  being  the  fountain  of  all  rights,  has  certainly 
rights,  which  he  can  by  no  means  deprive  himfelf  of.  Ke  has 
•a  right  of  dominion  over  the  creature,  and  to  the  creature's  fub- 
jeiSlion,  that  he  cannot  part  with.  As  long  as  there  is  a  rational 
creature  it  is,  by  its  being,  inevitably  fubje£t  to  its  Creator, 
and  he  cannot  part  with  that  right  he  has  to  govern  it.  **  With 
**  the  fupreme  Proprietor,  there  cannot  but  be  unalienable 
'*  rights,  infepirably  and  everlalllngly  inherent  in  him  :  for  it 
*'  cannot  be,  but  that  he,  who  is  the  fountain  of  all  rights  mud 
**  have  them  primarily  and  originally  in  himfelf;  and  can  no 
**  more  fo  quit  them,  as  to  make  the  creature  abfolute  and  inde- 
**  pendent,  than  he  can  make  the  creature  Gcdf."  Hence  in- 
evitably there  muft  be  allowed  felf-jufiice,  which  is  nothing 
clfe,  fave  that    fixed  determination  of  the  divine  v/ill,  not  to 

pari 

*  "  No  injury  is  done  to  one  who  is  willing." 
+  Living  Temple,  Part  2.  pag.  270. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      20I 

part  with  what  is  his  own  unalienable  right,  and  confequently 
xo  maintain  it. 

(3.)  This  juflice,  in  order  to  maintain  God's  right  of  govern- 
ment, obliges  him  to  enadl  penal  laws  as  the  meafure  of  the 
creature's  fubje6lion  and  obedience.  A  fubjedt  cannot  be 
without  laws.  And  where  the  creature  is  capable  of  tianf- 
greffing,  laws  cannot  be  fuch  without  penalties.  Without  thefe, 
they  were  rather  counfels  or  advices,  than  laws  ;  and  the  per- 
fon  to  whom  they  are  given  is  left  at  will  to  be  fubje6l,  or  not. 
And  if  God  fhould  thus  leave  the  creature  without  a  penalty, 
then  upon  tranfgreflion,  the  tranfgreffor  has  dipt  entirely  out 
under  the  dominion  of  God  ;  for  he  is  not  ad^ively,  in  thatin- 
flance,  fubje6l  to  God.  And  neither  is  he  paffively  lubje(^,  if 
there  is  no  penalty.  So  that  by  this  means  God  has  forfeited  or 
Joft  his  right,  which  is  impofliblc.  There  is  no  other  imagina- 
ble tie  of  fubjeflion,  but  either  the  preceptor  the  penal  fanCtion 
of  the  law,  whereby  rational  creatures,  as  to  their  moral  de- 
pendence can  be  bound.  Now  if  God  part  with  the  one,  by 
remitting  the  penalty,  orenaiSling  laws  without  it,  and  man  call 
off  the  other  by  difobedience,  the  creature  is,  at  leaft  thus  far, 
independent.  Which  how  abfurd  it  is,  is  eafy  to  fee.  Where- 
fore, in  cafe  the  creature  is  made,  we  cannot  but  fuppofe  a  law 
muft  be  made  to  it.  And  if  the  creature  is  capable  of  violating 
that  law,  there  mud,  for  preferving  that  right,  which  God  has 
to  the  creature's  fubje6tion,  be  a  penalty  annexed  to  that  law. 
Whence  itfeems  evident,  "  that  God  did  owe  it  to  himfelf  pri- 
**  marily,  as  the  abfolute  Sovereign  and  Lord  of  all,  not  to 
**  fuffer  indignities  to  be  offered  him,  without  animadverting 
**  upon  them,  and  therefore  to  determine  he  would  do  fo*." 

(4.)  The  creature  being  made,  jaftice  requires  that  it  fhould 
be  under  fuch  a  law  as  is  ena6\ed  with  a  penalty,  and  fuch  a  lav/ 
being  now  enadted,  there  feeras  to  arife  a  double  necefTity  for 
the  execution  of  the  law,  in  cafe  of  traafgreifion.  The  one 
arifingfrom  the  reafon  of  the  law,  the  other  from  the  law  itfelf : 
Since  upon  the  grounds  already  laid  down,  the  law  was  necelTa- 
ry  ;  the  fame  grounds  enforce  the  execution  of  the  law  :  for 
when  the  cafe  falls  out,  for  which  the  law  was  provided,  it  is 
not  merely  the  law  or  coni^itution  itfelf,  but  the  execution  of  it 
that  fecures  the  end.  When  the  creature  difobeys,  he  has  in  fo 
far  renounced  an  a6\ual  dependence  on,  and  fubjeC^ion  to  the 
lawgiver  and  law  :  and  therefore  it  feems  of  neceflity  that  either 
as  to  thefe  actions  he  is  not  fubje£i,  or  he  muft  be  fubje6l  to  the 

B  b  penalty. 

*  Living  Temple,  pag.  271. 


202  AN    INQ^UIRY  INTO   THE        chap.  x. 

penalty.  Again,  as  the  reafon  of  the  law  enforces  the  execu-> 
tlon,  fo  does  the  Jaw  itfelf.  For  the  law  being  once  made,  juf- 
tice  requires  that  its  honour  be  fecured  either  by  obedience,  or 
by  the  fubje6\)on  of  the  tranfgreflor  to  the  punifliment. 

(5.)  To  proceed  yet  further,  if  the  law  is  not  executed,  the 
deTigr;,  even  the  principal  defign  of  punifhment  in  this  cafe,  is 
no?  reachtd.  It  is  not  the  only  or  main  defign  of  punifhment  or 
penal  fan^^ions  to  reclaim  the  offender,  or  benefit  by-(tanders, 
or  fecure  the  community.  It  is  true,  the  penal  fan61ion,  or  Jaw 
enacting  the  penalty,  is  of  ufe  to  deter  from  trangreffing,  and 
{o  is  of  ufe  to  the  community,  and  all  under  the  government  , 
but  the  execution,  if  the  fan6\ion  is  punifhment  after  this  life,  is 
cf  no  advantage  to  the  offender,  nor  is  it  inflru6\ive  to  by-iland- 
ers,  or  the  refl  of  the  community,  who  do  not  fee  it:  wherefore 
thefe  are  not  the  principal  ends  of  punifhment.  Though  it  is 
beobferved,  that  any  public  intimation  that  the  penalty  fhall 
not  be  inili6fed,  could  not  but  be  of  the  worff  confequcnce  to 
the  community,  as  rendering  it  vain  as  to  all  that  ufe  which  it 
has  of  deterring  perfons  who  are  under  the  law  from  fin.  Vet 
I  fay,  thefe  are  not  the  principal  ends  of  punifhment ;  but  the 
fatisfadion  of  the  Lawgiver.  For  the  cafe  is  not  here,  as  it  is 
in  human  governments,  where  the  governor  and  government 
are  both  coni'iltured  for  the  good  of  the  governed,  v/hich  there- 
fore mufi  be  the  chief  aim  of  all  laws  :  but  on  the  contrary,  the 
governed  are  made,  and  the  laws  made,  and  penalties  ena£fed 
for  the  Governor,  who  made  all  things  for  himfelf-  And  con- 
fequently,  the  principal  defign  of  punifliment'is  the  fecuring; 
and  vindicating  his  honour  in  the  government.  Nor  is  this 
any  fuch  thing  as  anfwers  to  private  revenge  amongft  men. 
*'  But  that  wherewith  we  muR  iuppofe  the  blefled  God  to  be 
*'  pleafed  in  the  matter  of  punifliing,  isthe  congruity  of  the  thing 
**  itfelf,  that  the  facred  rights  of  his  government  over  the  world 
**  be  vindicated,  and  that  it  be  underfiocd  how  ill  his  nature 
"  can  comport  with  any  thing  that  is  impure,  and  what  is  in 
*'  itfelf  fo  highly  incongruous,  cannot  but  be  the  matter  of  his 
*'  deteftation.  He  tal^es  eternal  pieafure  in  the  reafonablenefs 
*'  and  fitncfs  of  his  own  determinations  and  a6\ions  ;  and  re- 
'*  joices  in  the  works  of  his  own  hands,  as  agreeing  v/ith  the 
**  apt,  eternal  fchemes  and  models,  which  he  hafh  conceived 
**  in  his  own  moO:  wife  and  all-comprehending  mind  :  fo  that 
**  though  he  defirelh  not  the  death  of  /inner  s^  and  hath  no  de- 
**  light  in  \\-\Q  Ju firings  of  his   alBicled   creatures,  which   his 

*'  immenfe 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       203 

**  HXimcnfe  goodnefs  rather  inclines  him  to  behold  with  cora- 
'*  pailion  ;  yet  the  true  ends  of  puniiliment  are  lb  much  a  grea- 
**  ter  good,  than  their  eafe  and  exemption  from  the  fuftcrings 
**  they  had  deferved,  that  they  mufl  rather  be  chofen,  and 
**  cannot  be  eligible  for  ^ny  reafon,  but  for  which  alfo  they 
**  are  to  be  delighted  in,  i.  e.  a  real  goodnefs,  and  conduci- 
"  blenefs  to  a  valuable  end  inherent  in  them." 

(6.)A5Juftice  in  a  ftritt  fcnfe,  of  which  hitherto  we  have 
rpoken,  as  it  denotes  that  re6\itude  of  the  divine  nature,  which  is 
converfant  about,  and  confervative  of  thedivine  rights,  pleads  for 
penal  laws  and  punilhment;  {o  likewife  juflice  in  a  large  fenfe, 
as  it  comprehends  all  his  moral  perfedions,  holinefs,  wifdom> 
faithfulnefs,&c.  and  anfwers  to  that  which  is  amongfl  men  called 
miiverfal  juftice,  pleads  for  the  fame  :  for  fo  taken,  it  compre- 
hends his  holinefs  and  perfe£l  deteflation  of  all  impurity;  in 
rcfpeil  whereof,  he  cannot  but  be  perpetually  inclined  to  ani- 
madvert with  feverity  upon  fin  ;  both  becaufe  of  its  irreconcilca* 
blc  contrariety  to  his  holy  nature,  and  the  infolent  affront,  which 
it  therefore  dire<Slly  offers  him  ;  and  becaufe  of  the  implicit 
and  moft  injurious  mifreprefentation  of  him  which  it  contains  in 
ir,  as  if  he  were  either  kindly  or  more  indifferently  affe6\ed  to- 
wards it:  upon  which  accounts,  we  may  well  fuppofe  him  to  ef- 
teem  it  necelTery  for  him,  both  toconflitutc  a  rule  for  punifhing 
it,  and  to  puni(h  it  accordingly  ;  that  he  may  both  truly  a6f  his 
own  nature,  and  truly  reprefent  it.  Again  it  includes,  thus  ta- 
ken, his  governing  wifdom,  which  requires  indifpenfibly  that 
be  do  every  thing  in  his  government  fo  as  he  may  appear  like 
himfelf,  and  anfwerably  to  his  own  greatncfs  ;  fo  as  to  fccure  a 
deep  regard  for  his  government,  and  all  the  parts  of  the  confti- 
tution.  In  refpe61  whereof,  it  might  be  fhown,  that  the  puniili- 
ment of  fin,  or  the  execution  of  the  penal  laws  folemnly  enact- 
ed is  neceffary.  Vv''ifdom  takes  care  that  one  attribute  do  not 
quite  obfcure  another,  and  will  not  allow  that  he  gratify  mercy 
to  the  detriment  of  juftice.  Again,  it  includes  his  faithfulnefs 
and  fincerity,  which  feem  pledged  in  enabling  the  penahy  for 
its  execution.  Kow  is  it  confident  with  them  to  ena6f  fuch  fe- 
vere  penalties,  if  he  may  remit  them  without  any  reparation 
made  for  the  wrong  done?  Any  one  that  would  fee  more  to  this 
purpofe,befides  others  who  have  difcourfed  of  Vindi6iive  Judice, 
may  perufe  the  learned  Dr.  How's  Living  Temple,  Part  2. 
Chap.  6aad  7,  who  has  learnedly  difcourfed  and  improven  this 

fubjed  : 


204  AN    INQUIRY     INTO    THE      chap.;.. 

fubjec^:  to  whom  we  own  ourfelves  indebted  for  much  light  in 
this  matter. 

Thus  it  feems  evident,  that  whether  we  take  the  divine  jufticc 
in  this  lafl  and  largeft  notion,  as  it  is  comprehenfive  of  all  the  per- 
fediions  of  the  DeitVj  or  in  the  former  and  firi6l  notion  as  it  im- 
ports a  virtue,whofe  province  it  is  to  take  care  of  the  prefervation 
cf  the  incommunicable  rights  of  the  Deity,  and  vindicate  their 
honour;  it  feems  neceflarily  to  forbid  the  remiffion  of  (in  with- 
out the  puniihment  of  the  tranfgrelTor,  or  a  reparation  of  the 
injured  honour  of  the  Deity. 

If  it  is  alleged,  that  by  repentance  the  fmner  returns  to  his 
fubjedion,  and  fo  the  honour  of  God's  goverment  is  repaired. 
I  anfwer,  that  upon  fuppofition  of  the  Tinner's  return  be- 
ing a  fufficient  reparation  of  the  honour  of  the  Deity,  there 
ivould  indeed  be  no  necelTity  of  punifnment  :  but  this  is  the 
queflion,  and  the  obje6^ion  begs  what  is  in  queflion.  The 
principles  now  laid  down,  (hew  that  juftice,  however  taken, 
muft  take  care  to  preferve  and  vindicate  God's  honour  in  cafe 
of  tranfgreffion.  The  penal  fan6tion  of  the  law  tells  us,  that 
the  puniQiment  of  the  tranfgrelTor  is  that  which  wifdom  and 
juitice  have  fixed  on,  as  proper  for  this  end.  There  is  no  al- 
ternative, puniihment  or  repentance.  The  law  makes  only 
mention  of  punlOiment.  When  therefore  the  obje6^ors  fay  that 
repentance  is  fufhcient,  we  deny  it.  They  do  not  prove  it, 
jior  can  they.  God,  to  whom  alone  it  belongs  to  determine 
what  is  necelTary  for  the  vindication  of  his  own  honour,  mufl 
determine  the  reparation  ;  we  cannot.  Yea,  it  were  prefump- 
tion  in  angeis  to  do  it.  God  has  fixed  upon  puniihment  :  if 
he  allow  of  any  thing  elfe,  the  light  of  nature  does  not  tell  it. 
Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  repentance,  as  has  been 
above  cleared,  that  can  induce  us  to  think  it  is  fufficient  to 
this  purpofe.  The  mod  virtuous,  who  muft  be  fuppofed  the 
penitents,  if  there  are  any  fuch,  meet  with  as  heavy  punilh- 
nients  in  this  life  as  any,  which  fhews,  at  leaft,  that  God  looks 
not  upon  their  penitence  as  fatisfa6lion. 

6.  Againfi  this  propohtion  we  reafon  thus,  Every  man  is 
endued  wiih  a  power  to  repent  when  he  pleafes,  or  he  is  not. 
To  affert  the  latter,  were  to  yield  the  caufe  ;  for  it  matters  not 
to  the  (inner,  whether  repentance  be  a  fufncient  atonement  or 
not,  if  it  be  not  in  his  power  to  repent,  Befidcs,  it  is  a  queftion 
in  this  cafe  of  confiderable  difficulty,  whether  it  is  confident 
^A'ith  the   perfedlions  of  God  to  give    this  power,  till  once  his 

honouy 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       205 

boncur  is  fecured  by  a  fuitable  reparation  for  the  injury  done  it 
by  fin.  If  it  is  in  the  finner's  power  to  repent  when  he  pleaf- 
cs,  then  again  1  infift, 

Either  God  without  impeachment  of  his  juftice  may  inflia  the 
puniftiment  contained  in  the  fan6\ion  of  the  law  on  the  finner, 
notwithftanding  of  his  repentance,  or  he  may  not.  If  he  may,  then 
the  deifts  can  never  without  revelation  be  fure  that  he  will  not 
Infill  the  punifhment,  which  is  what  we  fay  :  nor  will  it  mend 
the  matter,  that  though  God,  without  impeachment  of  his  juf- 
tice,  may  punith  the  repenting  finner,  that  he  cannot  do  it  with- 
out injuring  his  mercy:  for  what  is  contrary  to  of  one  God's 
attributes,  is  fo  to  all.  And  moreover,  the  juftice  of  God  in 
particular  requires  that  each  of  the  divine  attributes  have  their 
<^ue. 

But  if  it  be  faid,  that  God  cannot  in  juftice  punilh  the  re- 
penting finner;  then  I  defire  to  be  fatisfied,  if  this  does  not 
evacuate  and  make  void  the  penal  fandtion  of  the  law  ?  For  if 
every  man  hath  a  power  to  repent  when  he  pleafes,  and  this  re- 
pentance ftops  the  execution  of  the  fentence,  I  do  not  fee  but 
any  may  offend  without  hazard. 

All  that  can  be  faid  is,  that  God  may  furprize  man  in  the  ve- 
ry aa  of  finning,  or  fo  foon  after  it,  that  he  ihall  not  have  time 
to  repent,  and  fo  man's  hazard  is  fufficient  to  deter  him  from 
fin. 

But  to  this  I  anfwer,  that  the  confideration  of  this  hazard  can 
never  have  much  influence  on  man,  to  make  him  refufe  the  gra- 
tifying of  his  fenfesj  in  which  he  finds  fo  much  pleafure,  fo 
long  as  in  the  ordinary  conduft  of  providence  he  fees  that  God 
very  rarely  takes  that  courfe  of  fnatching  away  finners  in  the 
very  a6l  of  fin,  or  fo  foon  after,  as  to  preclude  repentance.  It 
is  not  fo  much  what  God  may  do,  as  what  he  ordinarily  does, 
that  is  of  weight  to  determine  men,  efpecially  when  they  have 
fo  flrong  motives  to  perfuade  them  to  the  contrary,  as  the 
impetuous  cravings  of  unruly  lufis  are  known  to  be. 

This  argument  gives  us  a  clear  view  how  much  the  deift's  no- 
tion of  pardon  upon  mere  repentance  favours  fin  ;  and  how  un- 
reafonable  the  outcries  of  Herbert  and  Blount,  repeated  ad 
mauftavi,  againf^  the  maintainers  of  fatisfa^ion  really  are. 
They  fay,  the  doftrine  of  fatisfa^ion  makes  fin  cheap.  But 
whetber  do  they  who  fay  that  fin  cannot  be  pardoned  without 
the  finner's  repentance  and  fatisfaftion,  or  they  who  afTert  rc- 
pentence  alone  fufficient,  make  fin  chcapefi  ? 

7.  I 


2o6  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  x. 

7.  I  further  argue  againft  this  do(^rIne,  that  this  conftitufion, 
grant  or  allowance  of  repentance,  in  cafe  of  tranfgreflion,  is 
either  co-eval  to  the  law,  and  has  its  rife  as  the  law  hath,  in  the 
relation  bctwixf  God  and  man  and  their  natures,  as  being  a  ne- 
ceffary  refult  of  them  ;  or  it  is  a  pofterior  eftablilhment,  and  an 
aft  of  free  and  gracious  condefcendence  in  God,  to  which  he 
was  not  neceffaril}^  obliged.  If  this  lart  isfaid,  then  I  fay,  this 
could  not  be  known,  but  by  a  revelation  or  fome  deed  of  God, 
expreffive  of  his  mind  in  this  matter.  The  firft  is  denied  by  the 
deifts  ;  and  we  defire  them  to  produce  the  work  of  providence 
whereon  it  is  legible,  that  God  without  any  reparation  to  his 
juftice  for  the  injury  done  him. by  fin,  will  pardon  the  fmner 
upon  his  penitence  and  admit  him  to  blifs.  For  though  wc 
fliould  admit  that  fome  works  of  providence  fingly  taken, 
without  obferving  others  which  have  a  contrary  afpe6^,  have 
fomewhat  like  an  intimation  of  a  placability,  which  we  fee 
but  little  reafon  to  do  ;  yet  we  deny  positively  that  there  is 
any  that  fpecilies  the  terms,  or  particularly  condefcends  on  re- 
pentance, as  that  whereon  he  will  be  pacified  and  reconciled  to 
finners.  And  if  any  will  pretend  to  draw  this  from  them,  1 
wlfii  they  would  elfay  it,  and  let  us  fee  of  what  form  their  pro- 
cedure will  be  ;  perhaps  they  may  prove  that  it  is  not  confiftent 
with  God's  attributes  to  pardon  an  impenitent  finner  :  but  if 
they  think  thence  to  infer,  that  therefore  it  is  confiftent  to  his 
attributes  to  p.irdon  one  merely  upon  his  penitence,  they  may 
make  good  the  confequence  if  they  can  ;  they  will  find  it  hard- 
er than  it  appears. 

If  the  former  is  faid,  that  this  conftitution  is  co-eval  with  the 
law,  and  is  as  much  a  neceiVary  refult  of  the  nature  of  God  and 
man,  and  their  mutual  relation,  as  the  law  itfelf ;  befides  what 
has  been  faid  to  d^monilrate  the  folly  of  it,  let  thefe  three 
things  be  ronfidered  : 

(i,)  ThedeiRs  do,  and  arc  obliged  to  fay,  that  man  is  not  now 
from  his  birth  more  corrupt  than  he  was  at  iirft. 

(2.)  Man  at  his  original  was,  and  confequently  according  Xo 
them,  ftill  is  endued  with  power  fuHicient  perfectly  to  know 
and  obey  the  law  he  is  fubjected  to.  To  fay  that  he  was  fub- 
jected  to  a  law,  which  he  was  not  able  to  know  or  obey,  is  to 
accufe  the  Deity  of  folly  and  in  jufiice ;  as  has  been  made 
appear. 

(3.)  The  law  to  which  man  is  fubje6^ed,  is  exa6lly  fuited  to 
God's  great  defign,  his  ov/n  glory  and  man's  happinefs. 

Thefc 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       207 

Thcfe  being  granted,  I  conceive  it  evident,  i.  That  nothing 
can  be  faid  more  injurious  to  the  glorious  perfe<Slions  of  God, 
than  that  any  of  them  gives  ground  of  hopes,  far  lefs  afTurance 
of  impunity  to  man,  if  he  break  thefe  laws,  which  are  equally 
fuited  tp  promote  God's  glory  and  his  own  good,  and  which  he 
wanted  neither  power  to  know  nor  obey.  2.  Such  a  grant 
would  be  of  no  lefs  dangerous  confequence  toman,  becaufe  it 
could  be  of  other  ufe,  than  to  tempt  to  a  violation  of  ihofe  laws, 
which  ft  is  fo  much  his  intereft  to  obey. 

But  fome  may  fay,  it  would  be  difcouraging  to  man  to  think 
he  were  undone,  if  he  difobeyed  in  the  lead.  I  arifwer,  this 
could  be  no  rcafonable  difcouragement  if  he  was  potTeffed  of 
power  perfed^ly  to  know  and  obey  the  law  he  was  fubjedted  to. 

Again,  it  may  be  faid,  that  it  was  neceflary  there  lliould  be 
fuch  an  encouragement  to  man ;  becaufe,  though  he  was  er- 
trufted  with  fufficient  power  to  know  and  obey  the  law  of  God  ; 
yet  he  was  for  trial  expofed  to  a  great  many  flrong  and  forci- 
ble temptations  to  dlfobedlence. 

For  anfwer  to  this  ;  fuppofe  two  men  equally  able  to  know 
and  obey  the  law  ;  the  one  knows  he  may  obtain  pardon  on 
repentance,  the  other  beleives  himfelf  irrecoverably  loft  if  he 
tranfgrefs  ;  I  defire  the  obje6^or,  on  fuppofition  that  both  were 
attacked  with  a  temptation  equally  ftrong,  to  anfwer  me  feri- 
oully,  I.  Which  of  thofe  two  would  in  all  probability  fooneft 
yield  ;  he  that  faw  a  probability  of  efcape  or  he  that  faw  none  ? 
2,  Since  the  keeping  of  the  law  was  highly  advantageous  to 
both,  which  of  the  two  is  in  the  beft  ftate ;  he  who  has  this 
ihong  motive  to  obedience,  that  he  is  ruined  if  he  difobey,  or 
he  that  halh  this  encouragement  and  enforcement  of  the  tempta- 
tion to  difobedience,  that  he  may  difobey  and  efcape  ?  Nor 
vvrill  they  evade  by  faying,  that  this  conflitution  was  knowable 
before,  but  was  not  taken  notice  of  till  fin  fell  out  :  for  if  it 
might  be  known,  all  the  inconvenlencies  mentioned  will  fol- 
low. Befides,  if  it  was  taken  notice  of  after  the  firfl  fin,  it 
might  be  a  temptation  to  all  fucceeding  tranfgreffions. 

In  fine,  if  this  allowance  of  repentance  be  faid  to  have  the 
fame  rife  with  the  law,  and  be  equally  neceflary  from  the  na- 
ture of  God  and  man  and  their  mutual  relation  ;  it  is  a  plain 
difpenfation  with  the  law,  and  that  equally  made  public,  be- 
ing notified  in  the  fame  way  as  the  law  is;  which  how  it  is  con- 
fiftent  v\  ith  the  wifdom,  hoiinefs,  and  juHice  of  God,  I  know 
not, 

8,  To 


2o8  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE         ghap.  x. 

8.  To  add  no  more  on  this  head,  if  this  ftory  about  the  fuf- 
fjciency  of  repentance  lies  fo  open  to  the  light  of  nature,  whence 
was  it  that  it  was  fo  little  difcerned  ?  The  name  of  it,  in  the 
fenfe  and  to  that  ufe  we  now  fpeak  of,  fcarce  occurs  among  the 
ancients,  if  we  may  believe  Herbert,  M^ho  read  them  all  with 
great  diligence,  and  with  a  defign  to  find  what  was  for  his  pur- 
pofe.  Speaking  of  their  fins,  he  fays,  **  Neque  igitur  mihi  du- 
**  bium  ejly  quin  eorum  pctnituerit  GentiUsf  qu^  tot  mala  accer- 
**  ferunt,  licet  rarius  quidem  panitenti^  verbum  inter  authores, 
**  eOf  quo  jam  ufurpatur  Jenfu,  reperiatur*  ,^  Why  does  not 
he  doubt  of  it  ?  The  reafon  he  goes  on  is,  becaufe  they  ufed 
facrifices.  But  I  fuppofc  for  this  very  reafon  fome  do  doubt  if 
they  thought  repentance  fufficient :  but  of  this  more  by  and  by. 
The  phliofophers  neither  taught  nor  pra6\ifed  it.  It  is  true> 
Periander  one  of  the  wife  men  of  Greece,  had  this  for  his  fay- 
ing, A//.apTwv  ij.sTa.[2a\'cvii,  *'  Repent  of  thy  fins;"  that  is,  pof- 
fibly,  leave  them  off.  For  who  can  tell  us  whether  he  had  a 
right  notion  of  repentance,  or  of  what  avail  he  thought  it?  Se- 
n.eca  fays,  Quefn  penitet  peccaJJ'e  pene  ejl  innocens  f.  This  is 
ipoken  with  his  ufual  pride  that  made  him  think  little  of  fin. 
But  where  is  the  perfon  that  taught  repentance,  or  offered  to 
evince  it  fufficient  to  atone  the  Deity  ?  Moft  of  them  contemp- 
tuoufly  dlfregarded  it.  We  find  nothing  like  it  in  their  bed 
morallfi's  prad^ice :  but  on  the  contrary,  they  were  fo  puffed  up 
with  their  virtues,  that  they  made  no  account  of  their  fins.  The 
priefis  taught  not  this  do6lrine,  for  they  Inculcated  facrifices  as 
neceffary  to  atone  the  Deity.  And  if  we  may  believe  no  in- 
competent judge,  both  priefis  and  people  were  perfuaded  that 
repentance  is  is  not  fufficient  to  atone  the  Deity.  It  is  Cefar 
who  tells  us,  that,  **  Pro  vita  hominis  nifi  vita  hominis  redda* 
**  tur  nan  pojfe  deorum  ijnmortalium  numen  placari  arbitrantur 
*'  Gain  :{:."  To  which  we  might  add  many  more  tefiimonles  to 
the  fame  purpofe.    Nor  do  we  find  any  thing  like  this  difcovery 

among 

*  Herbert  de  Relig.  Gentil.  pag.  T98. — "  Nor  is  it  tlierefore  a 
*'  doubt  with  me  that  the  Gen:iles  repented  of  thofe  crimes  which 
"  brought  fo  many  evils  upon  them,  although  the  word  repentance,  in 
"  that  fenfe  in  which  it  is  now  ufed,  feldom  occurs  in  their  authors." 
+  "  He  who  repents  of  having  linned  is  almpft  innocent." 
X  Caefar  de  BeJlo  Gal.  Lib,  6.  See  Outramus  de  Sacrificiis,  I-ib,  i. 
Cap.  22. — <<  The  Gauls  are  of  opinion  that  the  Majeily  of  the  immor- 
**  tal  gods  cannot  be  appeafed  unlefs  the  life  of  a  man  be  given  for  the 
^*  Hfe  of  another." 


PHIMCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      209 

among  them  ;  M'hich  is  very  ftrange  in  a  matter  of  importance,  if 
it  was^lb  dearly  revealed.  That  which  is  moll  like  what  they 
would  be  at,  is  what  we  find   in  Ovidius — 

So'pe  let'ant  penasi  ereptaqUe  lutnina  reddmit 
'^e?n  bene  peccati  penituijfe  'vides.     Et  alihiy 

^(aynnjis  eji  igttur  vicritii  indehita  ncjlris,     - 
Magna  tamen  /pes  efi  iH  bonitate  Dei  *. 

But  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpofe  :  how  many  of  the  poets' 
notions,  and  particuJarly  this  one,  were  traditional?  How  evi- 
dently were  their  notions  cf  all  things  about  the  gods  fuited  to 
their  own  fabulous  ftories  of  the  clemency  of  the  gods.  And 
befides,  we  have  no  alTurance  that  he  underftood  what  we  do  by 
repentance.     Nor  indeed  could  he.     But  of  this  more  anon. 

OhjeBions  confiJered* 

IT  remains  now  that  We  take  notice  of  fome  confiderable  oh-- 
je61ions  that  are  made  againfl:  what  hitherto  has  been  dicourfcJ 
by  different  perfons,  on  different  views  and  principles. 

I.  Say  fome,  if  the  cafe  is  fo  apparent  that  all  have  finned ^ 
and  the  relief  is  fo  hid,  that  nature's  light  could  not  difcern  it  ; 
whence^is  it  that  all  men  run  not  to  defpair  and  take  fanduary 
here  ?  Whence  Is  it  that  religious  worihip  was  univerfally  con- 
tinued in  the  world?  Yea,  whence  is  it  that  fuch  a  wordiip 
univerfally  obtained^  that  feems  founded  on  the  fuppofition  of  a 
placable  God? 

To  this  fpecious  argument  we  anfwer,  that  many  things  there 
are  in  nature,  whereof  we  can  give  no  fatlsfying  account.  And 
If  there  fliould  prove  fomeiliing  in  morality  too,  not  to  be  ac- 
counted for,  it  were  not  to  be  wondered  at.  But  not  to  infift  on 
this,  I  anfwer  dire6lly.  A  fair  account  may  be  given  of  this 
otherwife  than  by  admitting  what  we  have  overthrown  upon  (o 
many  clear  arguinents.  Towards  which,  we  Ihall  make  the  fol- 
lowing attempt:  l.  The  natural  notices  of  a  Deity,  that  are  In- 
laid in  the  mindsof  men,  ftrongly  prompted  them  to  worihip  fome 
one  or  other.  From  this  natural  obligation  they  could  not  {hake 

themfelves 

*  De  Ponto  Lib.  i.  Eleg.  1.  7. — *<  You  fee  that  he  who  duly  re- 
**  pcnts  of  his  offence,  often    alleviates  his   punilii me nt,  and  rei^ores 

"  his  loft  light. Although  therefore   it  is  not  due  to  our  raciits, 

"  vet  there  is  great  hope  in  the  goodnefs  of  God.'* 

C  c 


2IO  AN   INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE         chaf  ' 

themfelvcs  loofe.  2.  Thrir  ignorance  and  darknefsas  to  the 
real  horror  of  the  cafe,  made  them  think  little  of  fin,  and  con- 
fequently  apprehend  that  it  would  not  prove  fuch  an  obfiruction 
to  acceptance,  as  really  they  had  realon  to  apprehend  it  was. 
3.  Ail  who  allow  of  revelation,  own  that  the  revelation  of  for- 
givenefs,  as  well  as  the  means  of  obtaining  it,  was  twice  uni- 
verfal  in  the  days  of  Adam  and  Noah.  4.  Though  this  reve- 
lation was  in  To  far  loft  by  the  generality  of  mankind,  that  it 
could  not  be  ufeful  to  its  proper  end,  yet  fomewhat  of  it  remain- 
ed fHU  in  the  world,  and  fprcad  itfelf  with  jnankind.  5.  All 
forts  of  men  found  their  interefl  and  account  in  keeping  it  up, 
1  he  priefts  who  engroITed  the  advantage  of  the  religion  of  the 
world,  found  their  gain  in  it.  The  politicians  who  aimed  at  the 
good  of  ibciety,  found  it  ufeful  to  their  purpofe.  The  poets 
who  aimed  at  pleafing,  found  it  capable  of  tickling  the  ears  of 
a  world  involved  in  fin.  And  the  people  whofe  confciences' 
were  harralTed  with  guilt  of  atrocious  crimes,  found  fome  fort  of 
relief.  And  what  ?A[  found  fome  benefit  by,  was  not  likely 
quite  io  be  loft.  The  phllofophers  feeing  the  ftrait  of  the  cafe, 
faw  that  they  could  not  make  a  better  of  it  and  fo  acquiefced. 
6.  Tiieir  profane  conceptions  of  the  deities,  as  if  they  were 
perlons  that  allowed  or  pra6lifed  their  evils,  did  help  forward. 
The  gods  which  their  own  fancy  had  framed,  they  could  caft  in- 
to what  mould  they  pleafed,  as  it  beft  fuited  their  intereft  or  in- 
clinations. 7,  Satan  who  acled  a  very  vifible  part  among  them, 
and  bore  fway  without  ccntroul,  no  doubt  had  a  deep  hand  in 
the  matter,  and  could  varioufly  revive,  alter  and  mianage  the 
tradition,  natural  notices  and  interefts  of  men,  fo  as  to  make 
his  own  advantage  of  them.  Other  things  might  be  added, 
fhcwing  the  concernment  of  the  holy  God  in  this  matter,  which 
1  fhall  wave  for  fome  reafons  that  are  fatisfying  tomyfelf.  But 
what  is  faid,  I  conceive  fufticient  to  blunt  the  edge  of  the  cb- 
jeftion.  1  Ihall  only  fubjoin  the  wordsof  the  learned  Amyrald, 
who  after  he  has  ov/ned  the  natural  difcoveries  of  placability  ; 
but  withal  (hown  their  ufelcft^ncfs,  and  tliat  they  had  no  influ- 
ence nor  could  have,  in  the  words  former ly  quoted,  at  length  he 
moves  th.is  fame  objctlion  that  \vc  have  here  propolcd,  and  re- 
turns the  anfvvcr,  which  we  (hail  now  tranfcribe,  though  it  \< 
fomewhat  long,  the  rather  becaufc  it  comes  from  a  perfon  not 
onK  of  great  learning,  but  one  who  owned  placability  might 
be  demonftrated  by  the  light  of  nature,  and  yet  denies  that  it 
was  the  foundation  of  the    religion  that  was  to  be  found- in  the 

w^orld. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       211 

vv'oild.     "  But  perhaps,  (fays  he,)  It  will  here  be  demanded, 
^^   v/hence  then  came   it  to  pafs  that   all  nations  have  each  of 
"   them  had  its  religion  ?  And  why  are  not  all  men  dilTociated 
''  Inliead  of  hanging   together   in  religious  fociefy  ?  To  which 
**  I  anlwer,  that  the   mind  of  man  is  never  agitated   with   the 
•'  fame  emotions,  nor  conflant  in  the  fame  thoughts;  the  fame 
**  paffion  not  always  pofTeffing  him,    nor  the  fame  vice.     They 
**  take  their  turns,  or  fucceed  and   mingle  one  with  another. 
**  Two  things   therefore   have  hindered  that  men,  though  pof- 
**  feffcd  with  fear,  have  not  abandoned  all  fervice  of  the  Deity, 
**  — profanencf:5  and  pride  :  God  perm;itting  the  profanenefs  of 
*■    fome  and    the    prefumption  of  others  to   temper  the  terror 
**  of  confcience.     Firfl,    profanenefs;    becaufe    not    v.-eighing 
**   fufficiently  how  much  God  abominates  vice,  and    how  inex- 
**  orable  his  juftice  is,  they  often  have  flattered  themfelves  with 
**  this   thought,  that  he  fcarce   takes    any  notice  of  fmall  of- 
**  fences,  and  fuch  as  are  in  the  intention  and  purpoieonly,  that 
**   is,  in  the  aifcCtions  of  the  will  and  not  in  a6lions  really  cx- 
^*  ecuted.     Moreover,  they  thought  he  was  not  much  incenfed, 
*'  but   with  crimes  that   turn  to   fome  notable  detriment  to  the 
**  commonwealth,  or  carry   fome   blot    of  infamous  improbity. 
**   Although  mafculine   lull  was   either  juP.ified  or  cxcufed,  or 
**   tolerated  by  the  mod  civilized  people  of  Greece.     And  they 
**  were    fometimes  fo    befotted   in    their   devotions,  that    they 
*'  thought  not  but  crimes  of  the  greateft  turpitude  with  no  great 
**  difficulty  might  be  expiated  by  their  facrifices,  luftrations,  reli- 
**   gious  procelfions.myfieriesand  bacchanel  folemnities.  On  the 
**,  other    fide,    prefumption  ;   becaufe   not   fulHciently   acknow- 
**  ledging   how  much  they  owed  to  the  Deity,  they  imagined 
*'   that   their  good   works,   their  offerings,  and   the  exercife  of 
**   that  fhadow  of  virtue,  which  they    purfued,  might  counter- 
**   vail  the   offences   they   committed:  fo    that    were   they  bal- 
**  anced  together,  there  might   be  hope  not  only  to  avoid  pu- 
"  nifnment,  but  moreover  to  obtain  recomper.ce.      Upon  which 
**  ground   it   was  that   Socrates  being  near   his    end,  and  dif- 
**  courfingof  the  immortality  of  the  Ibul,  fpeaks  largely  of  his 
'*   hope,  (in  cal'e  the  foul   be    not  extinguid-ied  with  the  body) 
**  to  go  and   live  with  Hercules  and  Palamedes,   and   the  other 
**   perfons  of  high  account.    But  as  to  afiiing  God  pardon  of  the 
**  ottences  he  had  committed,  he  makes  no  mention  at  all  of  it  ; 
**  becaufe  though  he  fpoke  always  difTemblingly  of  h  imfelf,  he 
had  in  the   bottom  of  his  foul   great  opinion  of  his  own  vir- 

*'  tue 


«e 


«i 


t( 


212  AN    INQ_UIRY   INTO    THE       chap.  x. 

■*  tuc,  and  made  no  great  reckoning  of  his  vices,  from  which 
'*  notwithf^anding  he  was  no  more  exempt  than  others.  And 
**  had  his  life  been  of  fuch  purity,  ihjt  tlic  eyes  of  men  could 
**  not  difccrn  a  blot  in  it  (although  Tome  have  written  Infamous 
*'  matters  of  him)  yet  when  the  account  is  to  be  made  up  with 
**  God,  there  needs  another  perfection  of  virtue  than  that  of 
his  to  fatisfy  fo  exatt  a  juliire.  But  yet  further,  oftentimes 
thefe  two  vices  of  profanencfs  and  prcfumption  have  met  to- 
gether in  the  fame  fubje6\,  and  lulled  men  with  vain  hopes 
into  abfoluie  fupinity.  Whence  the  excels  of  fear  hath  been 
**  retrenched,  which  would  otherwife  have  at  laft  turned  into 
**  defpair,  and  confequently  not  only  diffipated  all  communion 
**  in  religion,  but  likevvife  ruined  all  human  fociety.  For  fear 
**  rertrainin'?;  man  on  the  one  fide  from  abfolute  contemning  the 
**  Deity  by  profanenels,  on  the  other  fide,  profanenefs  and  pre- 
**  fumption  hindered  it  from  precipitating  nien  into  thst  furious 
**  defpflir  which  would  have  overthrov/n  all,  and  raufed  more 
**  horrible  agitations  in  the  mind  of  man,  ihan  ever  the  moll 
**  outragious  bacchldes  were  fenfible  of.  So  that  by  the  mix- 
*'  ture,  viciiTitude  and  variation  of  thefe  diverfe  humours  has 
religion  been  maintained  in  the  world.  But  it  is  eafy  to  judge 
*  how  flncere  ihat  devotion  was,  which  was  bred  of  fear,  (a 
paffion  that  is  naturally  terminated  on  hatied)  felf-prefump- 
**  tion,  and  mifapprehenfion  of  the  julf ice  of  God.  Whereas 
**  the  certain  knowledge  of  the  remiflion  of  fins,  of  which  the 
**  fpecial  revelation  from  heaven  can  only  give  us  affured  hope, 
'*  is  a  marvellous  pewerfully  attradlive  to  piety,  out  of  gratitude 
*^   towards  fo  Ineftimable  a  goodnefs*." 

II.  Sonje  object  again Jl  what  has  been  proven.  That  God  is 
good,  companionate  and  kind  ;  and  that  natures  cf  any  excel- 
lency take  pleafure  in  cxercifing  mercy,  companion  and  kind- 
nefs,  and  with  difliculty  are  brought  to  a6ls  of  fcverity, 

1  anfwer,  i.  The  goodnefs,  kludncfs,  mercy  and  compafFion 
of  God  are  a  pietty  fubje6t  for  men  to  declaim  and  make  ha- 
rangues about.  But  when  tliey  are  made,  they  are  iiitle  to  the 
purpofc  ;  for  they  are  eafily  anfivered  by  a  reprcfentation  of 
the  juftice  and  holinefs  of  God»  And  the  difliculty  is  not 
iouchcd,  unlefs  men  can  iliew  how  thefe  fecmingly  jarring  at- 
iributes  ma)'^  be  confident,  2.  The  inferences  men  muft  draw 
from  fuch  reprefentations  of  the  nature  of  God,  are  fuch  as  will 

crols 
•"  Amy  raid  cf  Rciig.  Tzzt  i.  Chap.  7.  pag.  254,  253,  256, 


*f 


n 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       213 

trofs  the  experience  of  mankind  who  want  revelation,  and  fee 
ijiariy  eHTefts  of  hie  bounty,  goodnefs,  forbearance  and  patience, 
but  none  of  his  pardoning  mercy  ;  and  nrjany  of  his  juftice  and 
holy  leveriiy.  Wherefore  M^e  inay  leave  this  fubjeft  and  pro- 
ceed, though  much  might  be  fald  to  clear  how  little  all  this  is  to 
the  purpofe.  But  we  conceive  this  is  apparent  from  what  has 
i?een  above  difcourfed. 

III.  It  is  laid,**  Ihat  the  very  comniand  of  God  to  ufe  his  ap- 
"  pointed  means  for  men's  recovery,  doth  Imply  that  it  ftiall  not 
"  be  in  vain  ;  and  doth  not  only  fhew  a  pofiibility,  but  fo  great 
'*  a  hopefulnefs  of  fuccefs  to  the  obedient,  as  may  encourage 
'*  them  chearfuUy  to  undertake  it,  and  carry  It  through*." 

In  aafvver  to  this,  I  have  above  cleared,  that  men  are  flill 
obliged  to  obey  ;  that  there  are  many  things,  of  which  feveral 
are  by  him  mentioned  in  the  fubfequent  fetlions  of  that  chapter, 
whence  thefe  wor^s  are  quoted,  which  might  be  improven  to 
excite  qian  tp  a  cordial  compliance,  in  cafe  there  were  a  new, 
clear  and  plain  invitation  to  a  return  with  hope  of  acceptance. 
And  I  admit,  that  to  deny  this,  as  he  fays,  in  the  words  Imme- 
diately proceeding  thofe  now  quoted,  were  to  make  earth  a  hell. 
Yea  further,  fo  long  as  men  are  out  of  hell,  there  is  flill  a  pofli- 
bility  in  the  cafe  :  but  that  there  is  any  fuch  invitation  given, 
or  aiTurance  of  a  hopeful  ifiTue,  or  means  diretlly  and  fpeclally 
inftituted  by  God  as  ineansof  recovery,  knowablq  by  men  left  to 
the  mere  light  of  nature,  I  deny  :  becaufe  I  fee  not  the  lliadow 
of  a  proof  and   evidence  to  the  contrary  that  has  been  offered, 

IV.  It  is  alleged  by  the  fame  author,That  God's  commanding 
us  to  forgive  others,  encourages  us  to  tx^tcX  Jorgivtnefs  at  his 
hand. 

To  this  I  fay,  i.  The  learned  perfon  owns,  **  That  from 
**  from  this  it  doth  not  follow,  that  God  mufl;  forgive  all, which 
**  he  bindeth  us  to  forgive,  for  reafons  he  had  before  expreffed." 
2.  I'fay,  that  this,  the  comm.and  of  God  to  forgive  others,  lies 
not  fo  open  to  the  view  of  nature's  light,  as  that  every  one  can 
difcern  it.  And  befides,  it  admits  of  many  exceptions,  for 
ought  that  unaffilled  nature  can  dilcover,  3.  It  is  reftrided  to 
private  perfons,  and  is  not  to  be  extended  to  public  injuries 
done  againfl  government,  4.  When  it  is  found  to  be  our  duty 
by  nature'ij  light,  we  are  brought  to  fee    it   bv  fuch  reafons  as 

ihcfc 

*  Baxter's  Reafons  of  Chrift.  Relig.   Part  i.  Chap.  17.  ^.  9.  pag. 

1S6, 


^14  AN   INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  x. 

tbefe,  That  v/e  need  the  like  favour  at  their  hands,  that  we  arc 
frail,  &:c.  which  gives  us  ground  to  be  jealous  that  the  like  Is 
riot  to  be  expelled  at  his  hand,  with  whom  thefe  things  have 
no  place,  which  are  the  reafon  of  the  law  to  us.  So  that  from 
this,  as  it  is  dilccverable  by  nature's  light,  no  furc  inference 
can  be  drawn. 

V,  It  is  obje<3ed,  That  facrifices  and  all  the  religious  fervi- 
ces  arr.cn gft  the  Heathens,  were  only  fymbolical  of  a  good  life 
i:nd  repentance*. 

To  this  I  fay,  j.  If  this  were  true,  Herbert  and  the  deifts 
are  much  in  the  wrong  to  the  prieAs  who  urged  the  ufe  them, 
as  men  who  negle£\ed  to  inculcate  repentance.  For  any  thing 
I  can  fee  they  were  more  commendable  than  the  philofophers, 
who  neither  taught  nor  pra^tifed  repentance,  and  vilified  facrifices. 
But  2,  This  is  a  fcandalous  falfchood ;  for  there  is  nothing  more 
evident,  than  that  by  the  facrifices  they  dcfigncd  to  atone  the 
deities,  and  expected  that  they  fnould  be  accepted  In  place  of 
the  offerers,  and  their  death  be  admitted  inftead  of  what  they 
had  defcived  themfelvcs.  See  abundance  of  teRlmonies  given 
to  this  by  him  to  whom  we  referred,  when  we  quoted  Cefar's 
tePiimony  to  this  purpofc  ;  I  mear^  Outram.  What,  I  pray, 
rneant  the  cuflom  that  previillcJ,  not  only  among  the  Jews,  but 
Heathens,  of  oif'erlng  their  Sacrifices  with  folemn  prayers  to 
God,  that  all  the  plagues  which  they  or  their  country  had  de- 
ierved,  might  light  on  the  head  of  the  victim  ;  and  fo  they 
themfelves  efcape  ?  And  hereupon  they  thought  that  all  their 
fms  did  meet  upon  it,  and  defile  it  to  that  degree,  that  none 
who  had  touched  it  dared  to  return  home  till  they  had  wafheJ 
and  purified  themfelves.  Suidas  reports  of  the  Greeks,  **  Quod, 
*'  ei,  qui  main  avcrruncandis  quotannis  deflinatus  erat,  fic  im,- 
*'  jjrf.cabantur,  Ju  ^^t-^yi^oi,  noflrum,  hoc  eji,  falus  ^  redemption 
'*  Arqut  ita  ilium  in  mare  projicidmiity  quafi  Neptune  facivm 
*'  piYfolventes\."  Servius  tells  us,  **  Maililienes,  quoties  pejii- 
^'  Un!ia  laborabant,  unu3  fi  ex  paupejibus  offerehat,  alcndus 
**  u-nno  integro  pubiicis  ii?  puno^ibus  cibis,  llic  pi^jleay  orna- 
^^  i^s  mrbtnis  i3  vcjlibus  facris,  circuiridiictbatur  per  tatom  ci- 

**  vitaiem 

*  See  A.  V7.  Letter,  Oracles  of  F.eafon. 

'\  "  They  curfed  the  perfon  who  was  yearly  appointed  for  averting 
•'  .-ieforcunes,  in  this  rflanner,  "  Be  thou  oar  atonement,"  that  is, 
*•  cj;  f:ifety  and  redemption  ;  and  fo  they  threw  him  into  the  fea,  as 
'"■  pciiorraing  a  facrifice  to  Neptune.'* 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODEKN  DEISTS.      215 

**  vitate?n  cum  fxecrationibus,  ut  in  ipfum  reciderent  mala  totius 
**  civitatis  ;  &  fic  prcjiciebatur  *."  But  we  have  ftayed  too  ior.g 
in  refuting  this  rra(i  and  ungrounded  conceit. 

VI .  Some,  to  prove  that  the  works  cf  providence,  particu- 
larly his  forbearance  to  finners  and  bounty  to  (hem,  do  call 
men  to  repentance  without  the  word,  urge  the  apoftle's  word!?, 
Rom.  ii.  4.  Or  defptfijl  thou  the  riches  of  his  goo  due fs  and 
forbearance^  and  lonfr'fiijjeringy  not  knowing  that  the  gaodnffi 
of  God  leadilh  thee  to  repentance  ?  To  this  we  anfwer, 

1.  Divines,  and  thefe  not  a  ^i^w^  nor  of  the  loweft  form,  do 
underfiand  this  whole  context  of  the  Jews  ;  and  they  urge  rea- 
fons  for  it  that  are  not  contemptible.  If  this  opinion  hold,  no 
more  can  be  drawn  from  thefe  words,  than  v^hat  has  been  alrea- 
dy granted  without  any  prejudice  to  our  caufe,  viz.  that  this 
difpenfation,  where  perfonsare  otherwife  under  a  call  to  repen- 
tance, gives  time  to  repent,  and  enforceth  the  obligation  of 
that  call  they  arc  under. 

2.  But  to  cut  off  all  pretence  of  any  plea  from  this  fcriD- 
ture,  we  fhall  take  under  our  confideration  the  apoflle's  whole 
diicourfe,  from  the  l6th  ver.  of  the  4th  chap,  to  the  4th  ver- 
of  the  3d,  and  give  a  view  cf  thefe  words,  and  other  paffaes? 
infifted  on  to  the  fame  purpofe,  with  a  fpecial  eye  to  the  apoJ- 
tic's  fcope  in  the  di{courfe,and  the  particulardcfign  of  every  paT- 
fage.  And  this  we  Iball  undertake,  not  (o  much  out  of  any  reoard 
to  this  obje6lion  in  particular,  but  to  obviate  the  abufc  of  feverai 
paiTages  of  this  difcourfe  of  the  apoftie,  by  one  with  whom  we 
ihali  have  juft  now  occafion  to  debate  almoft  every  verfe  in 
this  fecond  chapter.  If  therefore  our  folution  of  the  apoOIe's 
difcourfe  feem  a  little  tedious  at  prefent,  this  difadvantai^e  will 
be  compenfated  by  the  light  it  will  contribute  for  clearing  ma- 
ny of  the  enfuing  objections. 

The  apoftle  Paul,  Rom.  i.  16.  had  afferted,  that  the  gofpf! 
is  the  power  of  God  to  falvation  to  every  one  that  believes^  to  th" 
Jewfirjland  alfo  to  the  Greek yih^t  is,  it  is  the  only  powerful  mean 
of  falvation  to  perfons  of  ail  forts  ;  neither  Jew  nor  Greek  can  be 

faved 

*  «  As  often  as  the  Maffilians  were  affliaed  with  the  peftilenc-, 
«<  one  of  the  poor  offered  himfelf,  who  v/as  to  be  nourilhed  for  a  whci? 
"  year  with  clean  viduals,  at  the  public  expence,  afcer  which  being  a- 
"  domed  with  vervains  and  facred  garments,  he  was  led  round  ths 
"  whole  city  with  execrations,  that  the  misfortunes  of  the  whole  ciii 
"  might  fall  upon  Y^'un,  and  thus  he  was  cad  our." 


2i6  AN    INCLUIRY    INTO   THE        chap.  x. 

faved  by  any  other  mean.  In  the  17th  verfe,  he  advances  an  ar-* 
gument  for  proof  of  this  aifertion,  which  is  plainly  this,  that  re- 
velation,which  exhibits  the  rightcoufntfs  ofGodj^hxch  is  the  only 
righteoufnefs  that  can  pleafe  God,  and  on  the  account  whereof  he 
accepts  and  juftifiesfinners;  and  which  exhibits //z/j  rightcoufncpSj 
not  upon  flender  or  conjedlaral  5;ro\inds,  hux  from  faithj  that  is, 
upon  the  teOimony  oi k\\q faithful  Go>J,  who  can  neither  be  de- 
ceived nor  deceive  us,  propofcs  this  righteoufnefs  to  our  faith,  as 
the  only  powerful  mean  of  falvalion  :  but  it  is  the  goJl'el  only  that 
doth  reveal  this  righteoufnefs  of  God  from  failhj  or  upon  the 
credit  of  divine  teftlmonv  unto  faith:  therefore  the  gofpel  is  the 
only  powerful  mean  of  God's  appointment. 

This  is  plainly  the  apoftlc's  argument ;  and  if  we  confidcr  it, 
we  will  find  it  to  comprize  three  affertions  ;  i.  That  the  right' 
^.oufmfs  of  God  rcvcTxlcd  in  the  gofpel,  and  received  hy  faith,  is 
that,  on  the  account  wliereof,  finners  are  accepted  with  and 
juflified  before  God.  This  is  one  branch  of  his  firll:  propofition^ 
which  he  defigns  to  explain  and  confirm  afterwards  at  length. 
Here  he  only  confirms  it  by  hintinj^  a  proof  of  it  from  the  prophet 
Habakkuk's  words,  the  ja/ljliall  live  by  faith,  t\\AX  h,  faith  re- 
ceiving the  righteoufnefs  of  God  revealed  in  Jhe  proniife,  is  the 
foundation  of  all  the  godly,  their  hopes  of  pardon,  peace. with 
God,  grace  to  fupport  under  trials,  and  a  merciful  deliverance 
from  them.  As  it  is  by  thefe  things  they  live  in  troublefome  times, 
fo  it  is  the  acceptance  of  this  righteoufnefs,  that  gives  them  any 
right  to  thefe  advantages.  2  His  firft  propofition  implies  this  alTer- 
tion,  that  this  righteoufnefs  of  God  revealed  in  the  gofpel,  is  the 
only  efFedlual  mean  of  acceptance  with  and  juification  before 
God  ;  or,  that  there  is  no  other  way  wherein  any  of  the  children 
of  men  may  obtain  thofe  advantages,  fave  this  Way  of  accepting 
by  faith  the  righteoufnefs  of  God,  upon  the  credit  or  faith  of 
his  teftimony  ;  this  is  the  other  branch  of  his  firfl  propofition. 
3.  The  apoftlc  affcrts  in  this  argument,  that  the  gofpel  doth  re- 
veal this  righteoufnefs  of  God ;  on  which,  and  on  which  only, 
acceptance  with  and  juRification  before  God  are  to  be  obtained, 
from  faith  to  faith*  This  is  the  apoftle's  aiTumption  orfecond 
propofition. 

The  apoOle  hnvjnp:  hinted  for  the  prefent,  at  a  fufficient  proof 
of  the  firfi  of  thefe  afl'prtlons,  as  has  been  faid,  paOes  it.  He  lays 
afide  likewife  the  third  of  thefe  aflertions,  defigning  to  clear  it 
afterwards,  and  addicfTcs  himfclf  to  tlie  proof  of  the  fecond  in 

the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       217 

the  enfuing  diTcourfe   from   chap.  i.  ver.   18.  to  chap.  iii.  ver, 
20'  or  thereabout. 

The  propofition  then  which  our  apoftle  fpends  the  whole 
context  under  confideration  in  proof  of,  is,"  That  there  is  no 
other  way  whereby  a  finner  can  obtain  juflification  before,  or 
acceptance  with  God,  but  by  faith:"  Or  that  **  neither  Gen- 
tiles tior  Jews  can  be  jullified  before  God  by  their  own  works. 

This  he  demonfirates,  Firft,  Againft  the  Gentiles  in  parti- 
cular, from  chap.  i.  ver.  18.  to  chap.  ii.  ver.  16.  according 
to  our  prefent  fuppofition,  or  conceffion  of  his  adverfaries. 
Next,  He  proves  the  fame  in  particular  againft  the  Jews,  chap, 
il.  to  ver.  8.  of  chap.  iii.  And  from  thence  to  the  clofe  of 
his  difcourfe  he  demonftrates  the  fame  in  general  againft  all 
mankind  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles. 

Firjly  Then,  he  demonftrates  againft  the  Gentiles  in  parti- 
cular, that  they  cannot  be  juftified  before  God  by  the  zuorks 
they  may  pretend  to  have  done  in  obedience  \.o  the  law  of  nature y 
by  the  enfuing  arguments,  which  we  fliali  not  i educe  into 
form  ;  but  only  propofe  the  force  of  them,  by  laying  down  in 
the  moO:  natural  and  eafy  order,  the  propofitions  whereof  they 
do  confifl. 

i.  The  apoflle  infinuates,  ver,  18.  that  the  Gentiles  had 
fome  notions  of  truth  concerning  God,  and  the  woriViip  due  to 
him  from  the  light  of  nature,  ver.  18.  though  they  imprifoned 
them  :  and  what  here  he  infinuates,  he  directly  proves  ver. 
19,  20. 

2.  He  aOerts,  that  they  did  not  walk  anfwerably  to  thefe  no- 
tices, but  detained  them  in  unnghteoufnefs  ;  that  is,  they  fup- 
preffed,  bore  them  down,  and  would  not  allow  them  that  di- 
re<Stive  power  over  their  pra6\ices  which  they  claimed  ;  but  in 
oppofition  to  them  went  on  in  fin.  This  he  had  intimated  in 
general,  ver.  18.  and  he  proves  it,  ver.  21,   22,  23. 

3.  He  proves,  that  the  wrath  of  God,  is  revealed  from  hea- 
veUf  efpecially  by  inftances  of  fpiritual  plagues,  the  mofl  ter- 
rible of  all  judgments,  againft  them  for.-nheir  countera6iing 
thofe  notices  of  truth.  This  he  alfo  intimated,  ver.  i8«  and 
proves   it,  ver.  24,  25,  26. 

4.  He  fhews,  that  the  Gentiles  being  thus,-  by  the  jufi: 
judgment  of  God,  given  up  and  left  to  themlelves,  did  run 
on  from  evil  to  worfe  in  all  forts  of  abominations  ;  and  there- 
by did  render  their  own  condemnation  the  more  fure,  inevit- 
able and  intolerable.     This  he  does  from  ver.  26,  to   32. 

D  d  5.  To 


2i8  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE      ciu?.  x. 

5.  To  confirm  this  further,  ver.  32.  he  (liews  that  the  fact 
cannot  be  denied,  in  regard  that  they  both  prac^tifed  thofe 
evils  themfelves,  and  made  themfclvcs  guilty  by  their  virtual 
approbation  of  them  in  others:  nor  could  It  be  excufcd,  (Incc 
they  could  not  but  know,  if  they  attended  to  the  light  of  na- 
ture, that    fucfi  grofs  abominations   are  worthy   of  death- 

6.  The  apo-lle  having  in  the  lad  verfe  of  chap.  i.  men- 
tioned this  aggravation  of  their  fins,  that  they  were  againfi: 
knowledge,  takes  occafion  thence  to  proceed  to  a  new  argu- 
ment, whereby  he  at  once  confirms  what  be  had  faid  about 
their  finning  againd  knoivledge,  chap.  i.  ver.  32.  and  fur- 
ther evinces  his  main  point,  that  they  mufl  inevitably  be  con- 
demned  by  a  new  argument,  which  he  lays  down  in  the  enfuing 
aifertion,  either    cxpreffed   or  infinuated# 

(r.)  He  takes  notice,  that  the  Gentiles,  if  he  fpeaks  of  them^ 
do  themfelves  practife  thofe  things,  which  they  judge  ai.J  con- 
demn  others  for. 

(2.)  He  takes  it  for  granted,  as  well  he  may,  that  he  who 
condemns  any  practice  of  another,  doth  confefs  that  that 
pra6licc  in  itfelf  is   worthy  of  condemnation. 

(3.)  He  hereon  infers,  that  the  Gentiles  do  pra6\ife  thofc 
things,  which  according  to  their  own  acknowledgment,  are 
in  themfelves  v/orthy  of  condemnation.  Nov/  this  conclufion 
diredly  fixes  upon  them  the  aggravation  mentioned  In  the  clofc 
of  the  proceeding  chapter,  viz.  That  they  know  the  things 
they  do  to  be  worthy  of  death.  And  this  fufficiently  clears 
the   connection. 

(4.)  He  argues  again,  that  the  judgment  of  God  being  al- 
ways according  to  truth,  he  will  c-rtaiiily  condemn  all,  who 
do    things   thjt  in  truth  are  ivorthy    cf  condemnation,  ver.  2. 

(c;.)  Hereon  by  an  inevlt.ible  confequence,  ver.  3.  he  con- 
cludes, that  God  will  certainly  condemn  the  Gentiles,  which 
is   the  main  point. 

(^  )  As  an  inference  from  the  whole,  h-e  concludes,  that 
as  uiv  profpe6l  ofefcape  is  vain,  fo  they  are  precluded  from 
all  excufe,  or  (hadow  of  ground  for  reclaiming  agair.ft  the 
fentence  of  God,  which  by  their  own  acknowledgement  pro- 
ceeds only  agalnd  praiSiices,  that  arc  in  truth  worthy  of  con- 
demnation. 

7.  J'he  apofile  having  thus  locked  them  up,  as  it  were, 
under  unavoidable  condemnarion,  proceeds  ver.  4.  to  cut  off 
lUeir  retreat  to   that,    wherein   fome  of  them,  took  fancluary. 

They 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      219 

They  concluded,  that  God,  who  did  forbear  them,  while  they 
went  on  in  (in,  and  allowed  them  to  fnare  fo  deep  in  his 
poodnefs,  would  not  punilli  them  i'o  Severely.  To  cut  ofF 
this  plea,  the  apoftle  firft  taxes  tiicm  as  guilty  of  a  grievous 
abufe  of  this  difpenfation,  while  they  drew  encouragement 
from  it  to  go  on  in  fin.  2.  He  argues  them  of  grofs  igno- 
rance of  the  genuine  tendency  of  this  dealing  of  God.  , To  ar- 
gue thus,  **  God  fnares  me  and  is  good  fo  me,  therefore  I 
may  fafely  f;n  agami^  him,  and  hope  for  his  iinpunity  in 
committing  known  fm  againfl  him,"  is  mad  and  unreafon- 
able.  Keafon  Aould  fay,  **  God  forbears  me,  and  fo  gives 
iTic  time ;  he  adds  to  former  obligations  I  lay  under  to 
obey  him  by  Joading  me  with  new  kindnefles,  therefore  I 
ihould  be  the  mere  lludious  to  pleafe  him,  and  avoid  thefc 
things  which  1  know  will  be  offenfive  to  him,  and  be  afhamed 
for  former  offences. "  This  by  the  way  is  the  full  import  of 
that  exprellion,  The  goodfiejs  of  God  Ida  ding  to  repentavcf.' 
But  of  this  more  ancn.  3.  Hereon  ver.  5.  lie  infers  that  their 
abufe  cf  this  difpenfation  and  their  not  returning  to  obedience, 
or  anfwering  the  obligations  laid  on  them  increa-es  their  guilt, 
and  fo  lays  up  materials  for  an  additicnal  libel,  and  a  more 
highly  accented  puniilimcnt,  ver.  5. 

Having  thus  fnortly  given  an  account  of  the  fccpe  and  mean- 
ing of  the  words,  I  fhall  next  lay  down  a  few  Ihort  obfervations 
clearly  fubverlive  of  any  argutricnt  that  can  be  drawn  from 
them. 

(t.)  None  can  fay,  that  the  perfons,  who  were  under  this 
difpenfation  did,  in  fa6},  underAand  it  to  import  a  call  to  re- 
pentance. The  apodle  accuf^s  them  of  ignorance  of  this,  and 
of  abufing  ic  by  drawing  encouragement  from  it,  that  they 
Ihould  efcape  puniihment,  though  they  vent  on  in  fin, 

(2.)  ll  is  piain,  the  apoille's  fcope  i-d  him  to  no  more,  but 
this,  to  evince,  that  this  difpenfation  afforded  them  no  ground 
to  hope  for  impunity,  no  encouragement  to  proceed  in  a  courfe 
of  known  fn,  that  it  did  aggravate  the  guilt  of  their  continu- 
ance in  fuch  fins, and  enforce  the  obligations  theyctherwife  wztq 
under  to  abdinencc  from  them,  and  the  practice  of  neglected 
duties.  This  is  all  the  words  will  bear,  and  ail  that  the  fcope 
requires. 

(3.)  Theapodic  is  proving,  as  \vc  have  clearly  evinced  above, 
that  the  perfons,  v/iih  whom  he  is  npw  dealing,  without  recourfe 
to  the    gofpel  revelation^  are  fhut  up  from  ail  accefs  to  julH- 

fication 


220  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  x. 

ficatlon  before  God,  acceptance  with  him,  pardcn  and  falvation  ; 
certain!  V  therefore  he  cannot  it)  this  pla>  e  be  urdeifiood  to  intend 
that  thefe  perfons  were  under  ireans  fufhcient  to  lead  them  to 
that  repentdnce,  upon  which  they  might  be  aiTared  of  forgi  vcnefs 
and  peace  with  God. 

(4.)  This  fame  apoftle  elfev  here  appropriates  the  call  to 
repentance  unto  the  gofpel  revelation,  Acls  xvii.  30.  fpeaking 
to  the  Heathens  at  Athens,  he  lays,  the  times  of  this  ignorance 
God  winked  at ;  but  new  common  deth  all  men  evry  xvhere  to  re- 
pent- Here  It  is  plain,  that  men  left  to  the  light  of  natnre,  are 
Jeft  without  lliis  call,  until  the  gofpel  ccme  and  give  this  invi- 
tation. 

(5.)  Wherefore  we  may  from  the  particular  fcope  of  thisverfe, 
the  general  fcope  of  the  apoftle's  dilcourfe,  and  his  plain  de- 
clarations upon  other  occafions,  conclude,  I.  That  the  repen- 
tance he  here  intends,  is  no.  that  repentance  to  which  the  pro- 
mife  of  pardon  is  in  the  gofpel  annexed  ;  but  only  an  abfiinence 
from  thefe  evils,  which  their  confciences  condemn  them  for, 
and  the  return  to  fome  fort  of  perforniance  of  the  material  part 
of  known,  but  defertcd  duty.  Frequent  mention  is  made  of 
fuch  a  repentance  in  fcripture  ;  but  no  where  is  pardon  pro- 
iriifed  upon  It.  2.  This  leading  imports  no  more,  but  that  the 
difpenfation  \\  e  fpeak  of  difcovers  this  return  to  be  duty,  and 
gives  fpace  or  time  for  It. 

(6.)  To  confirm  what  has  been  now  faid,  it  is  to  be  obferved, 
that  our  apoftlc  acquaints,  that  this  forbearance  and  goodnefs  is 
e^ercifed  towards  the  vejfels  of  wrath  fitted  to  deJirvMion^  Rom. 
5X,.  22.  which  fufficlently  intimates  that  this  difpenfation  of 
stielf  gives  no  affurance  of  pardon  to  thefe  who  are  under  it, 
but  is  confiflent  with  a  fixed  purpofe  of  puniibing  them.  Yet 
■^vithout  this  adurance,  it  Is  Impodlblc  there  fticuid  ever  be  any 
call  fo  repentance,  that  can  be  available  to  any  of  mankind, 
or  anfwer  the  hvpothefis  of  thofe  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

8.  In  the  clofe  of  ver.  5,  the  apoOle  introduces  a  difcourfe 
of'the  laft  judgment  for  two  ends  :  Firtl,  To  cut  offthofe  abuf- 
ers  of  God's  goodnefs  from  all  hopes  of  efcape.  He  has  before 
fliewcd  that  they  have  flored  up  fins,  the  caufcs  of  wrath  ;  and 
here  he  fnews  there  is  a  judgment  defigned,  wherein  thev  will 
reap  as  they  have  fown.  Thus  the  words  follcMnng  are  a  confir- 
mation of  the  foregoing  argument,  and  enforce  the  apoflle's  main 
fcopc.  Secondly,  fie  does  it  for  clearing  the  righteoufnefs  of  God 
^rom  any  imputation  that  the  dilpenfation  he  had  been  fpeak- 
ing 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        221 

j/ig  of,  viz.  his  forbearance  and  goodnefs  towards  finriers,  might 
tempt  blind  men  to  throw  upon  it  ;  and  this  he  does  by  flicwing 
that  this  is  not  the  time  of  retribution,  but  that  there  is  atLopen 
2nd  foiemn  diHribution  def\{5ned,  wherein  Gcd  will  fully  cl^sr 
his  righteoufnefs.  To  theie  iwo  erds  is  this  whole  account  of 
the  lafi  judgment  fuited.  He  tells  them  that  there  is  a  c'av  of 
wrath  and  of  tht  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  oj  God. 
While  he  fpeaks  of  the  reuelaticn  of  the  righteous  judgment  of 
Godi  he  tacitly  grants  that  by  this  difpenfaticn  of  foibtarance, 
the  righteouinels  of  Gcd's  judgment  is  icme  way  clouded  or 
under  a  vail  :  but  withall  he  imimates  that  there  is  a  definite 
time,  a  day  fixed  lor  its  manifefiation  ;  and  that  this  day  will 
prove  a  day  oJ  wraths  that  is,  a  day  wherein  the  virdi6\ive  juf- 
tice  of  God  will  fignally  mar.iteft  itfelf,  in  pun  filing  iuc  h  fin- 
ners  as  they  were  with  whom  he  deals.  In  fliort,  he  acquaints 
them,  that  the  defign  of  this  day  is  to  reveal  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God,  that  is,  to  maniteH  to  the  conviction  ot  an- 
gels and  men,  the  righteouinels  of  God's  prccctdings  toward 
the  children  of  n?en,  particularly  as  to  rcwardsand  punilh.ments. 
It  will  be  righteous.,  and  therefore  fuch  finricrs  as  they  {hall  net 
efcape.  It  will  be  revealed  to  be  luch  ;  and  fo  all  grour.d  of  ca- 
lumny will  be  taken  away.  To  clear  this,  he  gives  an  account 
of  the  concernments  of  that  judgment,  in  fo  far  as  it  is  to  his 
purpofe  ;  wherein, 

(l.)  He  teaches,  that  there  will  be  an  open  retribution  of 
rewards  and  punilhmer.ts,  God  will  render,  &c. 

(2.)  He  fhews,  that  God  will  proceed  in  this  retribution  up- 
on open  and  inconteftible  evidence.  He  will  render  according 
to  zuorks'  The  perfons  who  are  to  be  punifl.ed  fl-iall,  to  the 
convidion  of  on-lookers,  be  convi<Sled  by  their  works  oJ impiety; 
and  the  piety  of  thofe  to  whom  the  rewards  are  given,  il.ail  in 
like  manner  be  cleared. 

(3.)  He  acquaints  them,  that  the  difiributicn  flail  be  fuita- 
ble  to  the  chara6^er  of  the  perfons,  the  nature  and  quality  of 
their  works.  He  will  render  according  to  their  works;  that 
is,  evil  to  the  evil  ;  good  to  the  good.  This  is  all  that  is  in^ 
tended  by  ^xroe,  fecunduvi,  or  according  :  the  rreaning  is  not 
that  he  will  render  according  to  the  merit  of  their  works.  For 
though  1  own  that  God  will  puniih  according  to  the  juft  de- 
merit of  fin  ;  yet  that  is  not  intended  here  by  this  phrafe  ac 
cording  to  works  :  for  the  word  in  its  proper  fignification  inti- 
mates, not  ftrl6^  or  unlverfai  proportion  betwixt  the  things  con- 

nec\ed 


•ii^: 


AN   INC^UIRY   INTO   THE         ghap.  x. 


necked  by  It ;  much  lefs  doth   it  particularly  'ivr.port,  that  the 
one  is  the  meriioricus  caule  of  the  other  ;  but   the   word  is,  in 
all  languages,  commonly  taken  m  a   more   lax  fignihcatjon,  to 
denote  any  rult^bienefs  betwixt  the  things  conne6ied  by  it.     So 
our  Lord  favs  to  the  blind  men,  Matth.  xix.  29.  According  te 
your  fait k  be  it  unto  yoU'     Who  u-ill  fay  that  any  faith,  but  e- 
jpeciaily  fuch  a  lame  one  as  we  have  reafon  to  think  thev  had,  did 
merit  that  miraculous  cure  ;  or  that  it  was  every  way  fuitable  unto 
3t?   Since  then  the  word  of  itfeif  does  not  import  this,  it  cannot 
be  taken  fo  here,   unlefs  either  other  fcriptures  determine  us  to 
this  fenfe,  or  fomething  in  the  context  fix  this  to  be  the  mean- 
ing of  it.     To  take  it  in  this  fenfe  as  to  rewards,  is  fo  far  from 
having  any  countenance  from  ether  fcriptures,  that  it  is  direftly 
contrary  to  the  whole  current  of  them.     And  when  the  word  i^ 
taken  in  this  fenfe,  then  the  fcriptures  plainly  tell  us  that  we  arc 
no\  faved  or  mvarded  by  or  according  to  our  works  of  rightiouf' 
fsefi,  but  according  to  his  mercy  through  Jtfus  Chriji,  Tit.  iii. 
5,  6.     Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  text  or  context  to  incline 
us  to  take  it   in  this  fenfe,  but  much  on    the   contrary  to  de- 
iTionftrate  that  this  is  not  the  meaning,  at   leaft  with  refpe6l  to 
rewards  :  for  to  fay,  that  the  reward  iliaii  be  given  us  according 
to  our  works,  that  13,  for  our  works,  as  meritorious  of  it,  flat- 
ly contradicts   the  apofile's  fcope,  which    is    to  prove,   that  all 
mankind,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  do  by  their  works  merit  only  con- 
demnation, and  that   none  can   expe6)    upon   them  abfolution, 
much  lefs  rev/ard,     Befides,  the  works  here  principally  inten- 
ded are  not  all  our  works,  nor  thefe,  which  if  any  had,  would 
have  the  faireft  pretence  to   merit,  vi?.   the  inward   actings  of 
grace,  faith,  love,  &c.  but  outward    woiks  that  are   evidences 
of  the  inward  temper  and  frame  ©f  the  ?61ors.     This  is  evident 
from    the  word   itfelf,  fiom  the   particular   inftances  elfewhere 
londcfcended  upon,  when  the  laft  judgment  is  fpoken  of,  and 
\'i'-\m  the  defign  of  this  general  judgment. 

(4.)  He  (hews,  that  this  rctribufion  will  be  imlverfal,  io 
c:)iry  oW-j  &ic, 

(r.)  He  iiiufTrates  further  the  righteoufnefs  of  it,  ver.  7.  by 
charailerizing  the  pcrfons  who  are  to  be  rewarded,  they  arc  fuch 
as  do  well,  thit  is,  wliofe  a6^ions  openly  fpeak  them  good,  and 
m-jdence  the  honef^y  of  the  prmciple  whence  they  flow;  xhty  con^ 
tinuiin  well  doing,  their  walk  is  uniform  and  habitually  good; 
iiowing  from  a  fixed  principle, and  not  from  an  external  acciden- 
tal caufe;  they  continue  paUently   in  this  courfe,  in  oppofition 

to 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      223 

ta  all  difcouragements  ;  nor  do  they  aim  at  worldly  advantage, 
but  at  that  glory ^  honour  and  immortality,  which  God  fets  be- 
fore them.  None  but  they,  who  are  perfed^ly  fuch,  fhall  have 
3  reward,  if  it  is  fought  for,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  cove- 
nant of  \Vorks:  and  in  this  fenfe  not  a  few,  nor  they  obfcurc 
interpreters,  do  take  the  words;  as  if  the  apoflle  had  faid,  if 
there  be  any  among  you,  who  have  perfe6^1y  obeyed,  ye  fhall 
be  rewarded  :  but  whereas  I  have  cleared  that'  none  of  you  are 
fuch,  ye  are  cut  off  from  any  expectation  of  reward.  But  if  the 
fincerity  of  obedience  is  only  intended,  then  the  meaning  is 
that  God  will  of  his  grace,  according  to  his  promife,  and  not 
for  their  works,  give  the  reward  to  the  fincerely  obedient ;  and 
thereby  will  openly  evince  his  righteoufnefs,  in  dealing  with  them 
exactly  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  covenant,  to  which  they 
belong;  fo  that  no.  perfon,  who  has  any  juft  claim  to  reward 
founded  upon  either  covenant,  fliall  want  it. 

(6.)  To  clear  the  glory  of  God's  righteoufnefs  further,  he 
fpecifies  the  reward,  viz.  eternal  lifi,  a  reward  fufficient  to  com- 
penfate  any  lofles  they  have  been  at,  evidence  God's  love  to 
holincfs,and  his  regard  unto  his  pronuTes. 

{7.)  He,  in  like  manner,  clears  the  matter  further,  by  giv- 
ing a  defcription  ver.  8.  of  the  perfons,who  are  to  be  condemned, 
which  evinces  the  apparent  righteoufnefs  of  the  fentence  to  be 
palTed  againft  them.  They  are  fuch  againrt  whom  it  will  be 
made  evident,  that  they  have  been  contentious,  that  is,  that 
they  have  oppofed  and  fupprefled  the  truths  they  knew,  flifled 
convictions,  and  detained  them  in  unrighteoufnefs  :  fuch  as  have 
not  obey zd  the  truth,  or  walked  up  to  their  knowledge,  but  have 
obeyed  unrighteoufnefs ,  following  the  inclinations  of  their  cor- 
rupt hearts.  As  if  the  apoftie  had  faid,  the  perfons  v/ho  arc  to 
be  rewarded  are  of  a  character  that  ye  can  lay  no  manner  of 
claim  to,  but  your  charadler  is  perfe(5tly  that  of  thofe  who  are 
to  be  condemned. 

(8.)  He  fpecifies  the  punifliment,  indignation  and  wrath* 

(9.)  To  fix  the  truth  and  importance  of  this  deeper  upon  their 
minds,  he  repeats  and  enlarges  upon  this  affertion,  ver.  9,  10. 
thereby  affuring  them  that  the  matter  is  infallibly  certain,  and 
to  2;ivc  a  further  evidence  of  the  righteoufnefs  cfGcd,  he  adjeCts 
a  claufe  and  repeats  it  twice  over,  viz.  jtrji  to  the  J  etc  and  aljo 
to  the  Gentile,  wherein  he  (lievvs  the  impartiality  of  God's  pro- 
ceedings. He  will  not  fuffer  one  foul,  who  has  any  juft  claim 
to  reward,  to  go  unrewarded,  be  he  Jew  or  Gentiie.     He  will 

not 


224  AN    INQUIRY  INTO   THE        chap,  x, 

not  allow  one  finner,  to  whom  puniflirnent  belongs,  to  efcape 
linpunifhed.  The  Jews'  privileges  lliall  not  lave  ihefn,  if  guilty, 
but  judgment  ihall  begin  firft  at  the  houfe  of  God  ;  nor  fhall  the 
bare  vv^nt  of  privileges  prejudge  the  Gentiles. 

(lo.)  To  confirm  this,  he  ad  J  aces  an  argume...  from  the  na- 
ture of  God,  ver.  1 1.  viz.  that  with  him  there  is  no  refpcEl  ofper^ 
fons,  t)iat  Is,  no  unjuil  partial  ly  toward  perfons,  upon  conhder- 
ations,  that  do  not  belong  unto  the  rule,  whereby  the  caufe  Is 
to  be  tried. 

(ii.)  To  ftrengthen  this  and  obviate  obje<5lions,  ver.  12.  he 
alTerts,  that  Gad  will  proceed  impartially  in  judging  them  ac- 
cording to  the  mofi"  unexceptionable  rule.  He  will  condemn 
the  Jews  for  their  trafgreflions  of  that  law,  which  he  gave  to 
them.  He  will  condemn  the  Gentiles,  not  for  the  iranfgreffion 
of  the  written  law,  wnich  they  had  not,  but  for  their  fins  againfl 
the  law  of  nature,  which  they  had.  And  fo  neither  of  them 
iliall  h^ve  ground  to  except  agalnil:  the  rule,  according  to  which 
God  proceeds  with  them. 

(12.)  Hence  he  takes  occafion,  ver.  13.  to  rep?l  an  obje6lion 
or  plea  of  the  Jews,  who  m.ight  fancy  that  they  fliouid  not  be 
punilhed  or  perllh,  to  whom  God  had  given  the  privilege  of  the 
written  law.  To  cut  of  this  plea  he  tells  them,  that  where 
perfons  expe6t  juftification  by  the  law,  it  is  not  the  knowledge 
of  the  law,  or  hearing  of  it,  hui  obedience  to  it  that  will  be  fuf- 
tained.  Here  he  does  not  fuppofe  that  any  fliall  be  juflified 
bv  doing  the  law  ;  nay,  he  proves  the  contrary.  It  is  mani- 
fertly  his  defign,  in  the  whole  difcourfe,  to  do  {o  :  but  he  ihews 
that  the  plea  of  the  Jews,  that  they  had  the  law,  is  infufficient ; 
as  if  he  had  faid,  be  it  granted,  that  juftification  Is  to  be  had  by 
the  law  ;  yet  even  upon  that  fuppofition,  ye  have  no  title  to  it, 
unlefs  ye  peifedly  obey  it.  The  law  pleads  for  none,  but 
thofe  who  do  {o>  And  fince  none  of  you  do  thus  obey  it,  as 
iliall  be  evinced  anon,  ye  mufl  perifh,  as  I  faid,  ver.  12. 

{13.)  Whereas  the  Gentiles  might  plead,  it  would  be  hard 
treatment  if  they  (hould  be  condemned^  fince  they  were  without 
the  law  ;  he  demonftrates  that  they  could  not  except  againfl 
their  own  condemnation  upon  this  ground,  becaufe  although 
they  wanted  the  written  law,  yet  thev  had  another  law,  viz. 
th^t  o(  nature  ;  for  the  breaches  of  which  they  might  julHy  b& 
condemned.  That  they  hac^  fuch  a  law  he  proves  againft  them, 
ver.  14,  15.  Firjlf  From  their  praf^icj*  :  he  tells  them  that  by 
the  guidance  of  mere  nature  they  did  the  zvoris  oj th&  lazo,  that 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       225 

is,  they  performed  the  material  part  of  fome  of  the  duties  which 
the  hw  enjoins,  and  thereby  evidenced  acquaintance  with  the 
law,  or  as  he  words  it,  they  fJiew  the  work  of  the  law  lunttin 
iti  their  hearts,  that  is,  the  remainders  of  their  natural  lights 
orreafon,  performs  the  work  of  the  law  commanding  duty,£,nd 
forbidding  fin.  Secondly,  He  proves  that  they  have  fuch  a  law 
from  the  v/orking  of  their  confcience.  He  whofe  confcicnce  ac- 
cufes  him  for  not  doing  fome  things,  and  approves  him  fordo- 
ing other  things,  knows  that  he  was  obliged  to  do  the  one  and 
omit  the  other,  and  confequently  has  fome  knowledge  of  the 
Uw,  This  is  the  apollle's  fcope,  ver.  14,  15.  So  that /^r, 
in  the  beginning;  of  ver.  14.  refers  to  and  renders  a  reafon  of 
thcfirft  claufe  of  ver.  12.  that  they  who  had  //zn<f^  without: 
law,  viz.  the  written  law,  fliall  pen/Ii  without  law,  that  is,  not 
for  violating  the  written  law,  which  they  had  not. 

(14.)  Having  removed  ihefe  objedions,  he  concludes  his  ac- 
count of  the  laft  jud<zment,  ver.  16.  wherein  he  gives  them  an 
account,  ijl.  To  whom  it  belongs  originally  to  judge,  it  is 
God.  2dly,  Who  the  perfon  is  to  whom  the  vifible  adminif- 
tration  is  committed,  it  is  Jefus  Chrift.  3fi7y,  What  the  mat- 
ter of  that  judgment  is,  or  what  will  be  judged,  it  is  the  y2- 
crets  of  hearts.  Although  works  will  be  infifted  upon  as  evi« 
dences  for  the  conviaion  of  on -lookers,  of  the  rightcoufnefs  of 
God  in  his  didribution  of  rewards  and  puniOimcnts;  yet  the fecrets 
of  men  will  alfobe  laid  open,  for  the  further  confufion  of  fin- 
ners,  and  juOification  of  the  feverity  of  God  againft  them. 

Secondly,  Now  the  aportle  having  proven,  that  the  Gentiles 
are  all  under  condemnation,  and  lo  cannot  be  juftified  by  any 
works  they  can  do  ;  and  having  likewife  removed  fome  excep- 
tions of  the  Jews  that  fell  in  his  way,  he  proceeds  next  di- 
re£\ly  to  prove  the  fame  againft  the  Jews  in  particular,  and  an- 
fwers  their  objeaions  from  chap.  ii.  ver.  17.  to  chap.  iii. 
ver.  8.  inclufrve. 

To  prove  this  charge  againft  the  Jews,  he  makes  ufc  only 
of  one  argument,  which  yet  is  capable  of  bearing  the  weight  of 
many  conciufions  or  inferences.  To  underhand  this,  we  muft 
take  notice,  that  the  apoflle  here  is  dealing  with  the  Jews, 
who  fought  to  he  jit flified  by  works-     And, 

I.  Bv  way  of  conccffion,  he  grants  them  feveral  privileges 
above  the  Gentiles  from  ver,  17.  to  ver.  20.  incltifive,  viz. 
That  they  were  called  Jews  ;  that  they  had  the  law,  on  which 
they  refted,  and  pretended  fome  peculiar  intereft.  in  Gcd,,  a?. 

E  e  being 


226  AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE         chap,  x, 

beins^  externally  in  covenant  wlih  him,  ver.  17.  of  which  the^ 
boafted ;  that  they  had  forne  knowledge  of  the  latv^  and  pre- 
tended themfelves  capable  of  guiding  others.  This  he  grants 
them  in  a  variety  ot  expreffions,  ver.  18,  19,  20.  By  v/hich 
the  apoftle  fecretly  taxes  their  vanity,  and  infmuates,  that 
whatever    they  bad   in  point  of  privilege,    they  abufed  it. 

2.  The  apoftle  charges  ihem  with  a  pra6tical  contradi^ion 
to  this  their  knowled(>e,  and  this  he  makes  good  againll  ihetn, 
particularly  agunft  their  highcft  pretenders,  their  teachers, 
I.  By  condefcending  on  feveral  inflances,  wherein  they  were 
gui'ly  and  appealing  to  their  confciences  for  the  truth  of  them, 
ver.  22,  23.  wiiich  I  (hall  not  infiii  in  explaining.  2.  He 
proves  it  further  by  a  teftimony  of  fcripture,  ver.  24.  wherein 
God  covnpiains,  that  their  provocations  were  fuch,  as  tempted 
the  Gentiles  to  blafpheme  his  name. 

Tiiis  is  the  argument,  the  conriufion  he  leaves  to  themfelves 
to  draw.  And  indeed  it  will  bear  all  the  conclufions  formerly 
Jaid  down  againd  the  Gentiles,  Whatever  their  knowledge 
was,  they  v/ere  not  doers,  but  breakers  of  the  law^  and  fo 
could  not  be  jnjlijied  by  it,  ver.  13.  but  might  expett  to 
perifli  for  their  tranfgreilions  of  it,  according  to  ver.  12. 
Thev  finned  againft  knowledge,  and  fo  deferved  as  fevere  rc- 
fentments  as  the  Gentiles,  chap.  i.  ver.  32.  They  could 
rot  pretend  ignorance  ;  for  they  taught  others  the  contrary, 
and    fo  were  without  excufe,  chap,   ii,   ver.    I. 

The  apoillc  next  proceeds  to  anfwer  their  obje£^ions.  The 
firft  whereof  is  brought  in,  ver.  25.  The  (hort  of  it  is  this, 
the  Tews  pretended  they  had  circumcifion,  the  feal  of  God's 
covenant,  and  fo  claimed  the  privileges  of  it.  This  obje6lion 
is  not  dire6ily  propofed,  but  the  anfwer  anticipating  it  is  In- 
tr.oJricd  as  a  confirmation  or  reafon  enforcing  the  conclufion 
aimed  at,  viz.  That  they  could  not  be  juHified  by  the  law: 
and  therefore  it  is,  that  we  find  the  calual  particle /<?r  In  the 
beginning  of  the  verfe.  This  much  for  the  manner  wherein 
the  objection  is  introduced.  To  this  objettlon  the  apoftle  an- 
fwers, 

1.  Bv  a  conceffion  ;  circuvici/ton  verily  profitcth  if  thou  keep 
the  laWf  that  is,  if  thou  perfectly  obey  the  commands,  then 
thou  mayeft  in  juftice  demand  the  privileges  of  the  covenant, 
and  plead  the  feal  of  it,  as  a  pledge  of  the  faithfulnefs  of  God 
in  the  promifes. 

2.  He  aniv/ers  dire6lly  by  (hewing,  that   this  feal  fignlfied 

juft 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       227 

luft  nctlii'ng:  as  to  th  \r  cbim  of  a  legal  ric^htcoufncfs,  bccaufe 
thev  were  kreahrs  of  the  law.  But  if  thnu  be.  a  breaker  of  the 
lawj  thy  drcumc'i  on  is  ?r,ade  uncircamci/ion.  I'he  ihort  of  the 
matter  is  thi- ;  this  fea!  is  only  a  condition:;!  engagement  of  the 
faithfuloefs  of  G'jcI  :  it  does  not  lay,  thou  Ihalt  get  the  privileges 
whether  iho'i  perform  the  condition  or  not:  fo  that  by  this  means, 
if  the  condition  is  not  performed,  ye  have  nothing  to  a{k,  and 
ye  are  as  remote  from  a  claim  to  the  reward,  as  they  who  want 
the  fesL 

3,  The  aroftic,  to  iUuftrate  and  confirm  what  he  had  faid 
^bout  the  unprofi^abienefs  of  circumcinon  in  cafe  of  tranigrel- 
Iion,  fl')e\v5,  that  a  Gentile  upon  fuppofition  that  it  were  pclli- 
ble,  obeying  the  law,  but  wanting  the  feal  of  the  covenant, 
would  have  a  better  title  to  the  privileges  promifcd,  than  a 
Jew,  who  had  the  feal,  but  wanted  the  obedience,  ver.  26. 
Therefore  if  the  innircumcilion  keep  the  rightccufncfs  of  the  lazn, 
that  is,  if  a  Gentile  Ihould  yield  that  obedience  the  law  re- 
quires, j!/;a// «(?/  his  uncircurr,cifioni  be  counted  for  circiuncifon? 
That  Is,  diali  not  he,  notvvithftanding  he  wanteth  the  outward 
fign  of  circijmcifion»  be  allowed  to  plead  an  intered  in  the  blef- 
lings  promifed  to  obedience,  and  to  inOft  upon  the  faithfulnefs 
of  God  for  the  performance  of  the  prcmifes  made  \^  the  obedi- 
ent, of  wiiich  circumciiiom  is  the  Tign  ?  Tb»e  reafoQ  of  this  is 
plain,  circumciBon  feals  the  performance  of  the  promile  to  the 
obedient  ;  the  Gentile  obeying  has  that,  which  is  the  ground 
whereon  the  failhfulnefs  of  God  is  engaged  to  perform  the 
promife,  viz.  obebience,  and  fo  a  real  title  to  the  thing  pro- 
mifed, though  he  wants  the  outward  iign  :  whereas  the  C'if- 
obeying  Jew  has  o'lly  the  feal,  which  fccurcs  ncthinc.  but 
upon  the  condition  of  that  obebience,  which  he  huS  net  yield- 
ed. This  is  only  fpoken  by  way  of  fuppcfition,  not  as  if  any 
of  the  Gentiles  had  yielded  fuch  obedience  :  for  he  hss  plain- 
ly proven  the  contrary  before.  The  apoUle's  reafon  is  t'lis, 
circurRcifjon  is  an  engagement  for  the  pcrformar.ee  ot  the  pro- 
mife to  the  obedient.  The  difobedient  jeu'  has  therefore  no 
title  to  the  promife;  whereas  the  Gennle  t!;at  obeys  having 
that  obedience  to  which  the  proniife  is  m.ade,  l;as  a  real  right 
to  it,  and  fo  mis^ht  expect  the  performance  of  it,  as  it  he  had 
the  outward  fea!. 

4.  To  clear  yet  further  the  unprofifabienefsofcircumcilion  witr,- 
out  obedience,  the  apoOiejUpon  the  forefaid  fuppofuion,  ihewsj 
that  the  Gentile  obeying  v/ould  not  only  have  the  belter   title; 

but 


223  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE        chap.  x. 

but  his  obedience;  would  contribute  to  clearing  the  juflice  of  Godj 
in  condemiiir.g  rhe  diiobcdient  Jew,  ver  2^.  And Jltall  not  un- 
cucumAfion  which  is  by  nature,  if  itjulfd  the  law,  judge  thee, 
zuho  by  the  letier  and  circumcifiun  doeji  trangrefs  the  lazu,  that  is, 
if  a  Gentile  wanting  circamciiion  and  tue  Jecurity  thereby  given, 
with  th^  other  advantages  v;  inch  the  Jews  have,  dilcover  the  in- 
excufjb'encls  of  your  dilobedience,  who  have  liie  /e//f r  and  cir^ 
cumcifiorij  or  the  written  law,  that  is,  v/ho  have  a  clearer  rule  of 
duty  and  a  pUiner    promife. 

5.  i'o  remove  enrirelv  the  foundation  of  this  obje«5\ion,  the 
apoiUe  clears  the  real  defign  of  circumcifion,  and  the  chara6ler 
of  the  perfon  to  whom  the  advantages  do  belong,  ver.  28,  29* 
wherein  he  ihews  neg.itively,  that  the  Jew  to  whom  the  pro- 
miles  do  beiong  is  not  eveiy  one  u'ho  belongs  to  that  nation,  or 
is  outwardly  a  Jew;  and  that  the  circunicifion,  touhichthc 
promifes  are  abfolutely  made,  is  not  the  outioard  circumcifioUf 
which  is  in  the  Jlejli^  ver.  28-  ;  but  pofitively,  that  the  Jew,  to 
whom  the  promifed  bleffings  belong,  ii  he  who  is  a  Jezv  inward- 
ly, that  is,  who  has  that  invv'ard  frame  of  heart  which  God  re- 
quires of  bis  people;  and  the  circuaiC!fion,to  which  bleffings  are 
abfolutely  promifed,  is  that  invtard  renovation  of  heast  which 
is  the  principle  of  the  obedience  required  by,  and  accepted  of 
God,  ver.  29. 

This  obje:iion  being  removed  out  of  the  way,  the  apoftle  pro- 
ceeds to  anfvver  an  infiance  againft  what  he  has  now  faid  in  the 
t'lree  or  four  firft  vcrfes  of  the  3d  chap.  The  objedtion  is  propol- 
cd  ver.  i,  and  is  in  (hort  this,  By  your  reafoning,  would  the 
Jews  fay,  we  have  no  advantage  beyond  the  Gentiles,  and  cir~ 
cumcifion  is  utterly  unprofitable.     To  this  he  anfwers, 

1.  By  denying  flatly  what  is  alTerted  in  the  objedion, declar- 
ing, notwith'landing  of  all  this,  the  Jews  had  every  way  the  ad- 
vantage. 

2.  Left  this  fhould  appear  a  vain  aflcrtion,  he  clears  it  by  an 
inftar.ce  of  the  higheft  confcqnencc,  viz.  that  they  had  the  oracles 
of  God,  which  the  Gentiles  v^'^nicd,  wherein  that  relief  againil 
trjnfgreilions,  which  the  Gentiles  were  firangers  to,  is  reveal- 
ed, as  he  exprefsly  teaches  afterwards,  ver.  21.  As  if  the 
ijpof^le  had  faid,  Though  ye  Jews  fail  of  obedience,  and  fo  are 
cut  ot}  from  julKncation  by  the  \,yw  as  a  covenant  of  works,  yet 
ye  have  a  rii^ineouinefs  rcveah^d  to  you  in  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  ver.  21.  to  which  the  finner  may  betake  himfelf  for 
relief;  this  the  Gentiles  who  want  the  law  and  prophets  know 
nothing  of.  3.  He 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  I^ISTS.      229 

3.  He  clears  tliaf  this  Is  a  great  advaritage,  notvvithftanding 
that  many  of  the  Jews  were  not  the  better  for  it,  ver.  3.  thus  at 
once  anticipating  an  obje6lion  that  might  be  moved,  and  con« 
firming  what  he  had  faid.  JVhat  if  Jo  me  did  not  bdievs,  that 
is,  though  fome  have  fallen  ftiort  of  the  advantages  of  this  re- 
velation, (hall  we  therefore  fay  it  was  not  in  itfelf  a  privilege? 
Nay,  it  is  In  itfelf  a  privilege,  and  they  by  their  own  fault  in 
not  believing,  have  forfeited  the  advantages  of  it  to  themfelves 
only  ;  for  Jhall  their  unbdUf  makt  the.  faith  of  God  withotit 
effed?  That  is,  alTuredlv  believers  wiil  not  be  the  worfe  dealt 
with  for  the  unbelief  of  others  ;  but  ihey  will  obtain  the  advan- 
tage of  the  promifcs. 

We  have  infified  much  longer  upon  this  context  than  was  de- 
figned,  but  we  hope  that  they  who  coi  fider  that  the  apoftle's 
arguments  and  his  whole  purpofes,  are  directly  levelled  at  that 
which  is  the  main  fcopc  of  thel'c  papers,  will  not  reckon  this  a 
faulty  dIgiefFjon.  And  befidcs,  we  fnall  immediately  fee  the 
ufefulnefs  of  this,  in  order  to  remove  the  foundation  of  a  great 
many  objections  drawn  from  this  context  by  Mr.  Humfrey  ; 
fome  of  whcfc  notions  we  (hall  confider  after  we  have  removed 
one  objection  more,  and  it  is  this  : 

VJI.  The  words  of  the  apollle  Paul  to  the  Athenians,  A^s 
xvii.  27.  are  made  ufe  of  to  this  purpofe.  The  apofile  tells 
them  in  the  preceding  words,  that  the  God  whom  he  preached, 
was  he  who  made  the  zuorldsj  kath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations 
of  men,  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  de^ 
termined  the  tiims  before  appointed,  and  the  bounds  of  their  ha* 
hitation  \  that  they  fliould  feek  the  Lord,  if  happily  they  might 
feel  after  him  and  fnd  him,  though  he  be  not  far  from  every 
one  ef  us  :  for  in  him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being. 
The  fum  of  what  is  pleaded  from  this  teftimony  amounts 
to  this,  that  men  left  to  the  light  of  nature  are  in  duty  bound 
to  feek  the  Lord  ;  that  God  is  not  fo  far  from  them,  but  he  may 
be  found  ;  and  that  if  they  will  feel  atter  him,  that  is,  trace 
thefe  dark  difcoverics  of  him,  in  the  works  of  creation  and 
providence,  they  may  happily  find  hinu 

For  anfwer  to  this  we  fay,  i.  No  word  is  here  to  be 
firetched  further  than  the  occafion  and  fcope  of  the  apofile  re- 
quires and  allows.  2.  The  occafjon  of  this  dif'ourfe  was, 
that  Paul  being  at  Athens,  faw  that  city  fet  upon  the  worlhip 
of  idols,  and  overlooked  the  one  true  God,  which  moved  him 
with  wrath,    and  gave   occaiion  to  this  difcourle;    the  evident; 

fcopc 


2^o  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE       chap.  x. 

fcope  whereof  is  to  fliew,  tbat  they  were  to  blame,  that  fhey 
overlooked  the  true  God,  and  gave  that  worihlp  to  idols,  which 
was  only  to  be  given  to  God.  For  convincing  them  of  this, 
3.  Fie  ihews,  that  (he  true  God,  by  his  works  of  creation  and 
providence  had  in  To  far  difcovered  hinfelf,  that  if  by  thefe 
works  they  fought  after  the  knowledge  of  hiip,  they  might  find 
him  fo  far,  or  know  »'o  much,  as  to  underfiand  that  he  alone 
was  tiie  true  God,  (o  whom  divine  worlhip  v/as  due.  4.  He 
ownSj  that  indeed  thefe  difcoverics  Vv^ere  but  dark,  to  wit,  in 
comparilon  of  the  difcoveries  he  had  made  of  himfelf  in  the 
v.ord  ;  which  is  fufficientjv  intimated  by  that  expreffion  cf 
feeling  after  him,  tiiey  mi^hl  find  him,  fo  f^r  as  to  deliver  them 
from  that  grofs  idolatry  and  neglett  of  him  they  were  involved 
in.  Here  is  all  that  the  fcope  holds  out :  but  he  does  not  fay, 
that  they  might  find  him,  fo  as  to  obtain  the  faving  knowledge 
of  him  by  theft  works  of  providence  ;  but  on  '^he  contrary  l)e 
tells  us,  thai  God  winked  at  the  times  of  ignoranze,  that  is,  feem- 
ed  as  if  he  did  not  notice  men,  and  in  his  hciv  and  fovereign 
jufiice  left  them  to  find  by  their  own  experience,  which  by 
any  means  they  had,  that  they  could  not  jsrrive  to  the  Javing 
knowledge  of  God;  though  they  might,  as  has  been  jufi  now 
faiJ,  have  gone  fo  far  as  to  difentangle  themlelves  fiom  that 
grofs  idolatry  for  which  he  now  reproves  them.  He  does  not 
fay,  that  God  then  railed  them  to  faving  repentance,  gav& 
^hem  any  difcovery  of  his  purpofe  of  msrcv,  and  thereon  in- 
vited them  to  peace  and  acceptance:  but  on  the  contrary,  he 
tells,  that  now  he  calls  all  mm  every  where  to  repent,  ver.  30* 
which  fufhciently  intimates  that  they  had  not  that  call  before. 
In  a  word,  it  is  not  that  feeking  or  finding  of  God,  or  that 
nearnefs  to  God  which  is  here  intended,  that  elfewhcre  the 
icripture  fpcaks  of,  when  it  treats  about  m.en's  cafe  wI)o  are  liv- 
ing under  the  gofpcl,  and  have  God  in  Chrift  revealed,  and  the 
gofpel  call  to  turn,  to  feek  after  and  find  liim  to  their  own  fal- 
vdtion  ;  as  the  fcope  of  the  place  fuliy  clears.  Any  one  that 
would  fee  this  place  fully  conrulered,  may  fmd  it  done  by  the 
jcarned  Dr.  Ovven,  in  (hat  accurate,  {hough  Paort  digreflion  con- 
cering  univerfal grace,  infcrted  in  hhlhro-og^Paiiiodap.  p'g';'.3» 
There  likewife  is  that  other  fcripture,  A6ks  xiv.  ver.  15,  16,  17. 
-;rgely  confidered.  On  which  I  ihall  not  now  infii],  feeing  there 
u  nothing  in  it  that  has  the  lead  appearance  ofoppofilion  to  what 
\ve  have  afferted,  if  not  that  God  is  there  faid,  not  to  have  left 
lirn/elf  zuilhout  a  zoitncfs  among  the  nations,  in  as  much  as  he 

did 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      20I 

did  good  to  them,  gavi  fruitful feafonSi  &c.  This  is  granted  :  but 
thefe  neceiraries  oflifc  are  no  vvitnefs  that  God  defigned  for  them 
mercy  and  forgivenefs,  as  has  been  made  appear  above,  and  as 
the  Spirit  of  God  tells  us  there;  for  Godfuffcred  them  to  walk 
in  their  ozun  way* 

Vlil.  Some  allege  that  there  is  a  law  of  grace  connatural  to  man 
in  his  lapfed  ftate,  and  that  in  llibftance  it  is  this, That  God  will 
pardon  finners  upon  their  repentance  t  and  they  tell  us,  that 
this  law  of  grace  is  as  much  written  (n  the  heart  of  lapfed  man, 
as  the  law  of  nature  v/as  written  in  the  heart  of  innocent  man. 
To  this  purpofe  fpeak^  Mr.  Humifrcy  in  his  Peaceable  Difquifz- 
lions*  1  and  that  with  fuch  an  air  of  co-itidence,  as  might  make 
one  expec\  better  proo*/  than  he  has  offered. 

We  lliall  jafl:  now  exa.nine  Mr.  Humfrey's  arguments.  As 
to  the  notion  itfelf  of  a  connatural  law  of  grace  written  in  the 
hearts  of  all  m.ankind  in  this  lapfed  condition,  we  look  upon  it  as 
abfoluteiy  falfe.  It  contradiils  fcripture,  reafon  and  experience. 
My  delign  excufcth  me  from  the  ufe  of  fcripture  arguments.  Ex- 
perience I  need  not  infift  upon,  after  what  has  been  already  faid, 
Reafon  will  not  allow  us  to  call  any  law  connatural  toman,  fave 
upon  one  of  thefe  three  accounts  ;  either  becaufe  we  arc  born 
with  a6\ual  knowledge  of  it  ;  or,  becaufe  it  lies  fo  open  and  is 
{o  fuited  to  our  rational  faculties,  that  any  man,  who  has  the  ufe 
of  reafon,  can  fcarce  mils  thinking  of  it,  at  leaft,  refufe  his 
a  (Tent  to  it,  when  it  is  propofed  to  him;  or,  finally,  becaufe  it 
is  nearly  connected  with  notions  and  principles  that  are  felf-evi- 
dent,  and  is  eafily  deducible  from  them.  Now  this  difcovery  of 
mercy  to  finners  merely  upon  repentance  is  connatural  in  none 
of  thefe  fenfes.  I  know  no  truth  that  is  connatural  in  the  firft 
fenfe.  The  ingenious  Mr.  Locke  has  faid  enough  againft  thisf. 
In  the  fecond  fenfe,  it  is  not  connatural.  Who  will  tell  me, 
that  this  is  a  felf-evident  propoiition,  while  fo  great  a  part  of  the 
more  knowing  and  judicious  part  of  mankind,  not  only  refafe 
their  adent  to  it,  but  reje6f  it  as  a  plain  untruth  ?  Yea,  I  doubt 
if  any  man  that  underftands  the  cafe,  and  knows  nothing  of  the 
fatisfa(Slion  of  Chrifl-,  will  give  his  afient  to  it.  In  this  laft  fenfe 
it  is  not  connatural;  for  if  it  were  fo,  it  were  eafily  demonfhrable 
by  thefe  felf-evident  principles,  to  which  it  is  nearly  allied  : 
which  when  Mr.  Humfrey  (liali  have  demonRrated  from  thefe 

principles 

*  Peace.  Difqaif.  Chap.  4.  pag.  56. 

f  Eflay  on  Huraan  Undcriland-  Lib.  i. 


^32  AN   INCI.UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  x. 

principles,  or  any  otlier  for  him,  we  (hall  then  confidcr  it  ;  but 
this  I  am  anprehcnfive  will  never  be  done.  In  a  wo^d,  all 
thele  truths,  which  with  ny  tolerable  propriety  of  fpeech  can 
be  Cdlled  connatural,  if  they  are  not  felf-evidcnt,  are  yet  fuch 
as  adinit  of  an  eafy  demondration.  And  it  is  fooliib  to  call 
any  truth  connatural,  unlcfs  it  is  fuch,  as  either  needs  no  proof, 
or  is  eafily  dcmonftrable.  This  is  fufi-icisnt  to  cveithrow  this 
notion. 

Before  we  confidcr  the  arguments   which  Mr.  Humfrey  ad- 
vances for  his  opinions,  I  (bail  otTer  to    the    reader  a  more  full 
view  of  it  in   his  own  wonh*      He  then  afl'erts,  **   that  there  is 
"  a  connatural  law  of  grace  written    in  t!:e  heart  of  man,  that 
'*   is,  that  this   law  of  lapfed  nature,  this  law  of  grace,  or  re- 
**  ^nedving  law,   is  written  in  the   heart  of  n)an    in    legard    of 
*'  his  fallen  n  jture,   no    !efs   than  the  law  of  pure  nature  itfelf 
**   was.     The  law  of  nature,  (fays  be)  as  1  take  it,  is  the  dic-^ 
**   tates  of  ri.j;bt  reafon,  declaring   to   us    our  duty  to    God,  to 
'*  ourfelves  and  to  our  neighbours  ;   and  the  light  of  the  fame 
reafon  will  dictate  to  us,  when  we  have  failed    in    that  duty 
to  repent  and  turn  to  God,  with  tru^ing   to   his   rr;crcy    and 
pardon  if  we  do  fo,  and  not  elfe.     We  do  find  it  legible  in 
our  hearts,   that  God  is  good  and  wifely  gracious  (o  confider 
our  loft  eOate,  and  pity  our  infirmities  and  neceiTary  frailty*." 
After  he  has  told  us  of  a  threefold  promulgation  of  this  law  of 
grace,  under   the    patriarchs,  by  Mofes  and  Chrift,  which   he 
calls  three  editions  of  the    fame   law  ;  he    fubjoins,  **  Now  I 
fav,  that  though  the  Heathen   be  not  under  (or  have  not) 
this   law   of  grace,  in   the  third  and  lafl;   fctting  out,  or  in 
the  flate  under  the  gofpel  ;  yet  they  arc  under  it   (or   have 
it)  in  the  (late  of  the  ancients,  or  as  they  had  it  in  the  firft 
**  promulgation  ;  and  upon  fuppofition   that  any  of  them  do, 
**  accordini^  to  the  light  they  have,  live   up  in   fincerity  to  this 
**   law,  I  dare  not  be   the   man  that  (hall  deny,  that   through 
'*  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chriil  (procuring  this  law  or  co- 
'*  venant  for  them,  as  for  us  and  all  the  world)  they  fnall  be 
"  faved  even  as  wc."     And  a  little  before  he  fays,  **  Thefc 
"  characters  thus  engraven  in  the  heart  of  man,  is  the  fame 
**  law  of  grace  in  its  praciical  contents,  which   is  more  large- 
**   ly  paraphrafed  upon  in  the  fcriptures." 

Surely  tlie  apoflle  Paul  bad  a  very  different  notion  of  the  flate 
of  the  Heathen  v/orld   from  this   gentleman,  when  he  tells  us 

emphatically 
*  Peace.  Difquif.  Chr.p.  4.  ip^g.  k6,  57. 


' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.     -233 

tmphatically,  that  they  are  grangers  from  the  covenants  of 
promife,  that  they  are  without  God,  that  is,  without  the  laving 
knowledge  of  God  ;  for  another  fenfe  the  word  will  fcarce  bear; 
that  they  txxQ  without  Chriftt  without  hope,  afar  off,  &c.  But 
it  is  not  my  deii©;n  to  offer  fcripture  arguments  againil  this  an- 
ll-fcriptural  divinity.  I  leave  this  to  others,  and  proceed  to 
his  proof:  nor  fliall  I  in  the  confideration  of  them  take  notice 
of  every  thing  that  might  be  juftly  quarrelled  ;  but  only  hint 
at  the  main  faults. 

1.  Ke  reafons  to  this  effecTt  :  If  there  is  no  connatural  law  of 
grace  written  in  the  heart  of  man,  then  none  of  thofc  who  liv- 
ed before  Mofes  could  be  faved,  in  as  much  as  there  was  then 
no  other  law  by  which  they  could  be  faved*.  This  argument  he 
borrows  from  Suarcz,  and  concludes  it  triumphantly  thus, 
**  Which  is  a  truth  fo  evident,  as  makes  the  proof  of  that  law 
**  by  that  reafon  alone  to  be  good." 

But  for  all  this  oommendation,  I  think  this  argument  has  a 
double  fault,  i.  It  proves  not  the  point,  viz.  that  there  is  a 
law  of  grace  written  in  the  hearts  of  all  men  by  nature  ;  but 
only  that  there  was  fuch  a  law  written  in  their  hearts  that  were 
faved.  This  argument  is  built  upon  a  fuppofition  that  is  plainly 
falfe,  viz.  that  there  was  no  other  way  that  they  could  be  faved 
but  by  the  law  of  grace  written  in  their  hearts.  This,  1  fav,  \i 
falfe  ;  for  they  were  faved  by  the  gofpel  difcovery  of  Chrifl  iii 
the  promife  revealed  to  them  by  God,  and  wherein  the^  gene- 
rality of  the  Lord's  people  were  more  fully  inftru6^ed  by  the 
patriarchs,  who  were  preachers  of  righteoufnefs.  And  this  re- 
velation and  preaching  was  to  them  inftead  of  the  written 
word.     Thus  we  fee  this  mighty  argument  proves  jufl  nothing. 

2.  He  reafons  from  Abraham's  pleading  with  God  on  be- 
half of  the  righteous  men  in  Sodom.  Here  he  thinks  it  evi- 
dent, that  there  were  righteous  men.  He  proves,  that  there 
were  none  righteous  then,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  and  therefore  concludes,  that  thefe  righteous 
perfons  did  belong  to,  and  were  dealt  with  according  to  the 
covenant  of  gracef.  But  now  what  does  all  this  prove?  Docs 
it  prove  that  thele  men  were  under  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
that  they  were  dealt  with  according  to  the  tenor  of  it?  Well,  I 
grant  it.    But  v/hat  will  he  infer  from  this,  that  therefore  all  the 

world 
*  Peace.  Difquif,  pag,  r^6. 
+  Ibid,  pag.  6c. 

F  f 


234  AN    INQUIRY  INTO   THE  chap.  x. 

world  were  under  the  covenant  cf  grace,  or  fhall  be  dealt  with 
according  to  its  tenor  ?  I  would  have  thought  that  one  vho  has 
read  Suarez,  might  know  that  this  conclufion  will  not  follow. 
If  there  had  been  any  righteous  men  in  Sodcm,  it  is  true  they 
were  under  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  I  add,  if  there  be  any 
fuch  in  the  world,  they  are  under  it  ;  therefore  all  the  world 
are  fo  ?  Who  fees  not  that  this  will  not  follow  ?  Again,  fuppo- 
iing  that  there  were  righteous  men  in  Sodom,  how  will  Mr. 
Huinfrey  prove,  that  they  had  no  other  rule  of  their  life,  or 
ground  of  their  liope,  but  his  connatural  law  of  grace?  Whv 
might  they  not  have  revelation  ?  Was  not  Abraham,  to  whom 
God  revealed  himfelf,  and  made  fo  many  gracious  promifes, 
well  known  to  forric  in  Sodom  ?  Might  not  the  fame  of  fuch  a 
perfon  fo  near  eafily  reach  them  ?  Was  not  he  the  deliverer  of 
Sodom  fome  eighteen  years  before,  and  did  not  Lot  his  friend, 
who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  revelations  made  to  Abraham,^ 
live  in  Sodom  ? 

3.  Mr.  Mumfrey  tells  us,  that  the  law  of  grace  was  in  Adam's 
and  N-oah's  time  publiflied  to  all  the  world,  and  that  it  never 
was  repealed,  and  therefore  all  the  world  arc  Hill  under  it,  and 
fo  in  a  capacity  of  faWation*. 

But  I.  This,  were  it  granted,  will  not  prove  Mr.  Humfrey's 
connatural  law  of  grace.  The  gofpel  is  revealed  to  all  the  inha- 
bitants of  England;  therefore  the  law  of  grace  is  uritten  in  their 
hearts :  he  rrjuil  know  very  little  of  many  people  in  England, 
who  will  admit  the  confequence.  2.  Nor  will  It  prove,  that 
all  the  world  arc  under  the  gofpel  revelation,  even  in  its  firO: 
edition,  to  ufe  Mr.  Humfrey's  words.  Suppofe  God  once  re- 
vealed to  the  world,  when  it  M'as  comprifcd  in  the  farr^ily  of 
Noah,  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  fo  all  this  little  world  had  the 
external  revelation*,  will  Mr.  Humfrey  hence  infer,  that  all  the 
defrendants  of  Noah,  after  fo  long  a  tra6^  of  time,  in  fo  many 
dit^^rent  nations,  have  0111  the  fame  revelation?  If  he  do,  the 
conlequencc  is  nought.  It  is  as  furc  as  any  thing  can  be,  that 
very  quickly  mofl  of  the  dcfcendants  cf  Noah  lofl  in  fo  far  that 
revelation,  or  at  leail^,  corrupted  it  with  their  vain  additions  to 
that  degree,  that  it  could  be  of  advantage  to  no  man.  3.  Nor 
will  what  Mr.  Humfrey  talks  of  his  repeal  help  cut  his  argument. 
To  deprive  a  people  of  the  advantag-e  of  an  external  revelation, 
there  is  no  need  of  a  formal  repeal  by  a  publifhed  flatute  ;  it  is' 

enough 

*  Peace.  Difquif.  pag.  62. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       235 

enough  that  men  by  their  wickedncfs  lofe  all  remembrance  of 
it,  and  futTcr  it  to  fall  into  defuetude,  and  God  fees  not  meet  to 
renew  the  revelation  to  them  or  their  pofterity. 

4.  Mr.  Humfrcy  will  prove  his  point  by  a  fyllogifm,  and  it 
runs  thus,  The  doers  of  the  law  are  juftified,  Rom.  ii.  vcr.  13, 
but  the  Gentiles  are  doers  of  the  law;  ergOj  fome  of  the  Gen- 
tiles are  juiiified  before  God. 

The  conclufion  of  this  argument  is  the  direct  antithefis  of  that 
pofition,which  the  apoftle  makes  it  his  bufinefs  in  that  whole  con- 
text to  prove,  as  is  evident  from  the  account  already  given  of 
that  context.  This  is  pretty  bold.  But  let  us  fee  how  he  proves 
his  minor.  This  he  pretends  to  do  from  Rom.  xiv.  where  it  is 
faid,  that  the  Gentiles  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the 
lazVf  and  fo  are  doers  of  the  Jaw,  and  confequently  fliall  be  juf- 
tified. 

Well,  is  this  the  way  this  gentleman  interprets  fcripture  upon 
other  occaiions  ?  I  hope  not.  He  has  no  regard  to  the  fcope  or 
defign  of  the  apo(lle*s  difcourfe.  AH  that  the  apoOle  fays 
here,  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  info  far  doers  of  the  law,  that  their 
doing  is  proof  that  they  liave  fome  knov.'ledge  of  it.  The  per- 
fons  who  here  are  faid  to  be  doers  of  the  law,  are  the  very  fame 
perfons  of  whom  the  apoflle  (ays,  ver.  12.  that  they  JJiall  PeriJIi 
loithout  the  lazo»  But  we  have  fully  cleared  this  context  be- 
fore, and  thither  I  refer  the  reader. 

But  Mr,  Rumfrcy  reforms  his  argument,  and  makes  it  run  thus, 
He  who  fincerely  keeps  the  law,  (hail  be  juftified  according  to 
that  of  our  Lord,  keep  the  commandments  if  thou  wilt  enter  in- 
io  eternal  life;  and  that  of  the  apoftle,  God  loill  render  eternal 
life  to  every  one  that  patiently  continues  in  zuell-doing  ;  but,  ar- 
gues he,  ibilJe  Gentiles  keep  the  law  f.ncerely  :  and  therefore 
it  is  according  to  the  gofpel,  which  requires  not  the  rigour, 
but  accepts  of  fincere  obedience. 

As  to  our  author's  major,  if  the  meaning  of  it  be,  that  we 
ihall  be  juftified  before  God  for,  or  upon  our  fincere  obedience, 
according  to  the  gofpel,  I  crave  leave  to  differ  from  him  ;  nor 
v.ill  the  fcripture's  adduced  by  him  prove  it  in  this  fenfe.  The 
firfi  is  a  reference  of  a  young  man  to  the  covenant  of  works, 
v/ho  was  not  feeking  falvation,  but  eternal  life  by  doing,  in  or- 
der to  difcoverto  him  his  own  inability  and  his  need  of  Chiift. 
But  as  to  this  commentators  may  be  confulted.  The  other  text 
I  have  cleared  above. 

His. 
*  Peace.  Difquif.  pag.  61, 


2^6  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE  chap.  x. 

Ill's  nonor  I  flitly  deny:  well,  but  our  author  will  prove 
it  by  a  new  lylloglim,  wliijh  runs  thus,  He  ivho  yields  fuch 
obedience  as  the  Jcivs,  who  arc  clrcunicifed  in  he.irt,  do,  yields 
that  finccre  obedience,  upon  which  the  golpcl  accepts  and  juf- 
tifies  men  ;  but  the  Gentiles,  or  fome  of  them  yield  fuch  obe- 
dience. 

I  have  already  entered  my  diffent  againft  the  lad  claufc 
of  the  m^jor,  viz.  That  the  gofpel  juftifies  men  on  fincere 
obedience;  but  it  is  not  my  delign  to  debate  the  point  of  juf- 
tific^tion  with  our  author  at  this  time,  and  fo  I  let  this  pro- 
pofi'.ion  p;j(s  :  yet  I  again  deny  the  minor,  which  our  author 
cffays  to  prove  thus.  That  fome  of  the  Gentiles  do  obey  in  that 
fenfe,  in  which  the  Jews,  who  are  circumcifed  inwardly  or 
in  heart,  do  obey:  this  he  pretends  to  demonilrate  from  the 
apoflle's  words,  Rom.  li.  26,  27.  Th^.rejore  if  the  uncircuyn^ 
cijion  keep  the  righteoufnefs  of  ike  law,  &c.  and  fhall  not  unciT' 
cumcifion,  zvhich  is  my  nature  j  if  it  fulfil  the  law. 

But  where  will  our  author  find  the  proof  of  his  minor  \xv 
ibefe  wordf.?  There  is  nothing  like  it,  unlefs  he  take  the  an- 
tecedent of  a  hvpothctic  propofitlon,  for  a  plain  afiertion. 
But  this  ar-teccdsnt  needs  not  be  allowed  poffible,  and  yet  the 
apoRle's  v/ords  and  his  affertion  would  hold  good,  and  all 
that  he  aims  at  be  reached.  Every  one  knows,  that  in  fuch 
propofitions,  it  is  only  the  connexion  \n^i  is  afTerted.  As  for 
the  meaning  of  the  text,  I  have  fhcwcd  before  that  it  is  not  for 
OUT    author's  purpofe. 

5.  But  our  author  has  another  argument,  wliich  he  ihinks 
is  clearer  than  all  the  refl,  and  profcfies  himfcif  pCifedJy 
fhicken with  the  evidence  of  it,  as  with  a  beam  of  light  never 
to  be  withftood,  or  any  more  to  be  doubted.  Well  this  migh- 
fv  argument  runs  thius  "  Jlf  U)is  was  fhe  chief  advantage  ihc 
♦*  Jew  had  over  the  Gentile,  that  one  had  ihc  oracles  of  God, 
**  and  the  other  had  not,  then  was  there  not  this  dltterence 
**  bcivveen  them,  that  one  is  only  in  a  Oate  of  natu'e,  and 
*'  the  other  in  a  Hate  of  grace;  or  that  one  was  in  a  capacity, 
**  a:id  the  other  under  an  impoffibility  of  falvation.  For  this 
^'  were  an  advantj^ge  of  a  far  £",re.Uer  nature.  But  this  was  the 
**  adv.-.r.tagc,  Rom  iii.  2,  Chiefly  htcaufe  to  them  were  com- 
*'  jTiitteji  tie  oracles  oj  God*;''  ergo. 

1  xmi\i  confefs,  that  I.  am  not  Rricken  with  fo  much  evidence 
upon  the  propofal  of  this  argument,  as  it  feems  our  author  was. 

To 


Peace   Difquir.   pag.  63>  6 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      237 

To  me  this  argument  appears  a  plain  rophlfm.  That  the  Jews 
had  the  oracles  of  God,  was  a  greater  advantage,  than  our  author 
I'eems  to  think  it.  And  while  the  apoftle  calls  it  the  cliicf  advan- 
tage of  the  Jews  above  the  Gentiles,  that  they  had  the  cracks  of 
God,  how  will  our  author  infer  from  this,  that  they  v/erc  upon  an 
equal  footing  as  to  the  means  abfolutely  neceflary  for  faivation; 
or  which  is  the  fame,  as  to  a  capacity  of  faivation  ;  for  certainly 
lie  that  wants  the  means  abfolutely  neceflary  to  faivation  is  not 
capable  of  faivation,  in  that  fen fe  that  beUngs  to  our  purpofc? 
For  my  part  1  would  draw  the  quite  contrary  conclufion  from 
it  ;  thus,  The  Jews  had  this  privilege  above  the  Gentiles,  that 
they  had  the  oracles  of  God  entrufted  with  them,  wherein  the 
only  way  of  faivation  is  revealed,  being  witnejfcd  to  by  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  Rom.  iii.  21.  and  therefore  had  acccfs 
to  faivation:  whereas  on  the  other  hand,  the  Gentiles  wanting 
divine  revelation,  which  alone  can  difcover  that  righteoufnefs, 
whereby  a  finner  can  be  juftified,  did  want  the  means  abfolutely 
neceflary  to  faivation,  and  fo  were  not  in  a  capacity  of  faiva- 
tion. Now  where  is  our  author's  boafted  of  demonllration  ? 
The  occafion  of  his  miftake  is  this,  he  once  inadvertently  fup- 
pofed,  that  thefe  two  advantages,  divine  revelation,  and  ac- 
cefs  of  faivation,  were  quite  different,  and  that  the  one  was 
not  included  in  the  other.     But  of  this  enough. 

Mr.  Humfrey,  I  know,  may  fay,  they  had  the  law  of  grace 
in  their  hearts.  But  that  is  the  qucftion.  Our  author  afferts 
this;  but  he  does  fo  without  proof.  Wc  have  all  this  while 
been  feeking  proof  of  this:  hitherto  we  have  met  with  none. 
We  have  met  with  fome  fcriptures  interpreted  or  wrefted  into 
a  fenfe  plainly  inconfiflent  with  their  fcope  and  intention, 
without  any  regard  had  to  the  context  and  drift  of  the  dif- 
courfe,  which    is   no  fafe  way   of  managing   fcriptures. 

Next,  he  infifls  upon  the  ftory  of  the  Ninevitcs' repentance. 
They  were  without  the  church;  it  was  a  law  of  grace  which 
led  them  to  repent.  But  had  not  the  Ninevites  divine  revela- 
tion? Did  they  not  repent  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah?  How 
will  our  author  prove  that  Jonah  never  dropped  a  word,  that 
there  was  a  poflibility  of  flopping  the  progrefs  of  the  controver- 
{y  by  their  turning  from  their  evil  courfes?  Did  not  Jonah 
apprehend,  that  the  event  would  be  a  further  forbearance? 
But  may  be  fome  may  fay,  Jonah  had  no  mind  they  fl^ould  be 
fpared,  and  therefore  would  not  drop  any  encouragement:  but 
we   know    that  it  was  not  of  choice   that  he   went  there ;  and 


23S  AN    INQUIRY     INTO    THE      chap.  x. 

as  lie  went  there  In  obebience  to  God,  fo  no  doubt,  he  who 
}>ad  been  (o  fharply  difciplined  for  dilobcdience,  would  fpeak 
what  the  Lord  commanded  him.  Again,  had  they  afTurancc  of 
pardon  or  eternal  falvation  upon  their  repentance?  Was  it 
gcfpci-repentancc  ?  Or  did  it  reach  farther  than  a  forbear- 
ance of  temporal  jugdments? 

Weil  but  the  inftance  of  Cornelius  feems  more  pat  to  his 
purpofe.  He  was  a  Gemiic,  was  accepted  with  God;  and 
Peter  tells  us,  that  in  every  nation  hi  that  fears  God  a?id  zoorks 
righiecufnefsj  is  accepted*  But  who  will  affurc  me  that  Cor- 
nv^lius  was  a  ftranger  to  the  fcriptures?  Did  he  not  know  them  ? 
Did  he  not  believe  them?  How  could  that  be?  It  is  plain  he 
was  a  profelyte  and  embraced  the  Jcwiili  religion  as  to  its  fub- 
i^ance,  and  that  he  did  believe,  fince  he  plea  fed  God  2x\d  was 
accepted.  Now  we  know,  that  without  faith  it  is  unpoffible  to 
pleoje  God,  What  wanted  he  then  ?  Why,  he  wanted  to  be  in- 
formed that  the  Meffiah  promifed  was  corrLe,  and  that  Chriji  Jc' 
J'dS  was  he.  As  to  what  the  apollle  fays  of  God's  acceptance  $f 
prrfons  of  all  natiom,  any  one  that  will  give  himfelf  the  trouble 
of  conficiering  his  fcope,  and  the  circumftances  of  the  place,  will 
fee,  that  it  is  nothing  elfe  but  a  comment  upon  the  defign  of  the 
vilion  he  got  to  iuRrudihim,  that  now  God  was  to  admit  perfons 
of  all  nations,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  to  a  participation  of  the' 
covenant  bleffinss. 


DIGRESSION. 

A  fhort  Digrejfion  concerning  God's  Government  of  the  Heathen 
World,  occajioned  by  the  foregoing  Ohjeclions,  wherein  an  at' 
tempt  is  made  to  account  for  the  Occurrences  that  have  the  mojl 
favourable  AfpeB  to  thtm^  zinthout  fappofing  any  Intention 
or  Defign  of  their  Salvation,  zvhich  is  adjefled  as  an  Appendix 
io  the  Anfnrtrs  given  to  Mr.  Humfrey*s  ObjeBions,  wherein  it 
is  made  evident^  That  there  is  ni  need  to  fuppofe  the  Heathens 
under  a  Law  or  Gavernment  of  Grace. 

IF  I  (hould  here  flop,  the  perfons  with  I  whom  have  to  do,  might 
poOTibly  allege,  that  the  main  ftrength  of  their  caufe  remains  un- 
rouched,  and  the  moft  ftraitening  difficulty  that  prelfes  ours  is 
not  noticed.  The  fhort  of  the  matter  is,  they  inquire.  What 
government  are  the  Heathen  world  under?  They  conceive  it  muft 

be 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      239 

be  allowed  a  government  of  grace,  fince  they  arc  not  dealt  by 
according  to  the  demerit  of  their  fins.  Poffibly  we  might  pro- 
pofe  fome  queftions  that  would  be  no  Icfs  hard  to  fatisfy,by  thofe 
who  talk  of  an  unlvcrfal  law  of  grace :  but  this  would  not  remove 
the  difficulty,  though  it  might  cmbarrafs  the  oppofers  of  our 
fcntiments.  I  (ball  therefore  open  m.y  mind  in  this  matter,  and 
ofFcrwhat  occurs  on  this  head.  If  I  miflake,itwill  plead  fomewhat 
for  me,  that  the  fubjcf^,  fo  far  as  I  know,  is  not  ufually  fpoken 
of  by  others,  and  I  have  not  of  choice  meddled  with  it,  but 
was  led  to  it  bv  mv  fubje<S^,  that  requires  fome  confideration  ©f 
it.  If  we  ftate  right  thoughts  in  this  matter,  it  will  give  light 
to  many  things,  that  othcrwife  are  dark.  What  I  have  to  fay, 
I  ihail  propofe  in  the  fubfequent  gradation. 

I.  Man  was  originally  made  under  a  law  that  is  holy,  good, 
righteous,  equal  and  juft  ;  this  law  required  of  ail  fubje<fted 
to  it  exact,  pun6^ual  and  pcrfe<^  obedience  ;  and  for  its  pre^ 
fervation  it  was  armed  with  a  penal  fan£llon,  anfwerable  to 
the  high  and  fender  regard,  which  the  infinitely  holy,  wife 
and  great  God  had  for  the  honour  of  that  law,  that  was  the 
declaration  of  his  will,  bore  the  imprefs  of  his  authority  and 
reprefentation  of  all  his  moral  excellenciest  And  befides  all 
this,  he  alfo  propofed  a  reward,  fuitable  to  his  wifdom  and 
goodnefs,  for  which  his  faithfulnefs  became  pledged.  It  is 
not  needful  to  launch  out  in  proof  of  the  feveral  branches  of 
this  aflertion.  That  man  was  made  under  a  law,  is  quefiioned 
by  none,  but  athiefis  ;  and  they  have  their  mouths  fufficiently 
(lopped  of  old  and  late  by  many  pcrfons  of  worth  and  learning. 
That  this  law  is  holy,  jufl;  and  good,  cannot  without  nota- 
ble injury  to  the  Deity  be  denied.  That  it  exadled  perfeft 
obedience,  is  fo  evident,  that  no  perfon,  who  thinks  what  he 
fays,  can  deny  it.  A  law  not  requiring  perfedl  obedience, 
to  its  own  precepts,  is  a  law  not  requiring  what  it  requires, 
which  is  plain  nonfenfe.  A  pofterior  law  may  not  require 
perfe6l  obedience  to  a  prior :  but  every  law  requires  perfcfl: 
obedience  to  itfelf.  That  this  law  was  armed  with  a  penal 
fan*5^Ion  is  evident  from  the  wifdom  of  the  lawgiver,  who 
could  not  enadl  fuch  laws,  which  he  knew  men  would  tranf- 
grefs,  without  providing  for  the  honour  of  his  own  authority. 
Befides,  If  there  is  no  penal  fand^Ion,  it  is  not  to  be  expect- 
ed that  laws  could  ever  reach  their  end,  efpecially  ss  thing:: 
have  always  fiood  with  man-  But  were  all  thofe  proofs  given 
up,  the  cfledls  of  vindictive  jufilce  hi  the  v/orld^  with  the  fears 

(liar 


240  AN    INCLUIRY    INTO   THE         c^ap.  >c. 

that  finners  are  under,  left  all  thefe  are  only  the  beginning  of 
forrows,  fufficiently  confirm  this  truth,  and  moreover  alTure  us, 
that  it  is  fuch  a  penalty  as  fuits  every  way  the  offence  in  its 
nature  and  aggravations.  But  1  know  none  of  thofe  things 
will  be  queftioned  by  thofe,  whom  we  have  mainly  under  view 
at  prefent, 

2.  All  the  children  of  men,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places  of 
the  world,  have  been  and  are  guilty  of  violations  of  ihis  law. 
We  have  heard  the  deifts  owning  this  before;  and  ChriQians 
will  not  deny  it.  Deills  would  have  thought  it  their  intereft  to 
deny  it;  but  fince,  it  is  unqueftionable  that  the  generality  of- 
fend, in  inftances  paft  reckoning.  If  they  had  affinned,  that  a- 
ry  one  did,  in  no  inllance  offend,  they  might  have  beeri  re- 
quired to  make  good  their  affertion:  but  this  they  could  not  do. 
Thev  duril  not  condefcend.  And  therefore  it  mull  be  owned 
that  the  bed,  not  in  one  inftance,  but  in  many,  violate  this 
law. 

3,  Upon  account  of  thefe  violations  of  his  holy  and  righteous 
law,  all  mankind,  every  individual,  and  every  generation  of 
men,  that  have  lived  in  the  world,  arc  obnoxious  to  juRice. 
By  thofe  fins  they  have  forfeited  any  claim  they  might  have 
laid  to  the  reward  of  perfect  obedience,  and  are  liable  to  the 
penalty  in  the  fan6^ion  of  the  law.  And  God  might,  at  any- 
time, have  righteoufly  inflidled  it,  either  upon  any  individual 
or  any  whole  race  of  men.  I  determine  not  noW  what  that 
punifhment  was.  They  who  talk  that  our  offences  arc  fmall, 
and  extenuates  them,  feem  fcarcely  impreffed  with  fuitable 
notions  of  God,  and  I  doubt  will  not  be  fuftained  judges  com- 
petent of  the  qualities  of  offences  and  injuries  done  to  his  ho- 
nour. But  whatever  the  punifhment  is,  eternal,  or  not,  which 
I  difpute  not  now,  bccaufe  we  agree  about  it  with  thofe,  whom 
we  now  have  under  confideration,  it  is  certain  none  can  prove 
that  it  is  all  confined  to  time,  or  that  any  temporal  punifhment 
is  fufHcient  for  the  Icafl  offence  that  is  committed  againfi  God. 
And  it  is  alfo  clear,  that,  upon  one's  finning,  the  penalty  might 
be  prefently  infli6\ed,  without  any  injuftice,  provided  the  pe- 
nal fan6^ion  were  fuitable  and  jufi  in  its  confiitution,  as  of  ne- 
ceflitv  it  mufl  be,  where  God  made  the  law  and  confiituted  the 
puftifhmcnt, 

4.  Although  God  righteoufly  might  have  cut  off  any  gene- 
ration of  men,  and  fwept  the  earth  clean  ;  yet  has  he  feen 
ineet  to  fpare  finners,  even  multitudes  of  them,  for  a  long  time. 

A 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        241 

A  piece  ofcondu^^  truly  aftoniftilng  !  Efpecially  it  would  ap- 
pear fOf  if  we  underftood  how  much  God  hates  (in.  The  on- 
ly reafon  why  the  Heathen  world  hath  not  admired  it  more, 
and  been  more  extenfivc  in  their  inquiries  into  the  reafons  of 
it,  is  becaufe  they  had  but  very  fliort  and  imperfe6t  notions 
of  God's  holinefs,  and  the  evil  of  (in.  They  took  notice 
of  God  s  forbearence  of  fome  notorious  offenders.  Some  of 
them  were  (lumbled  at  it,  and  fome  of  them  endeavoured  to  ac- 
count for  it.  But  the  wonder  of  God's  fparing  a  world  full  of 
finners,  was  little  noticed,  and  though  they  had  obferved  it, 
they  would  have  quickly  found  thcmfelves  as  much  at  a  lofs  here, 
as  any  where  elfe.  The  fcriptures  have  not  gratified  the  curio- 
iity  of  men  with  fuch  a  full  account,  as  our  minds  would  have 
dc(ired,  that  arc  too  forward  to  queflion  him  particularly  about 
his  ways,  who  gives  an  account  of  none  of  his  matters  :  yet  fome 
reafons  of  this  condu<5t  are  dropped  that  may  fatisfy  the  hum- 
ble. I.  God  made  a  covenant  with  Adam,  wherein  his  polleri- 
ty,  as  well  as  himfelt"  were  concerned  and  included.  They  were 
to  be  gainers  or  lofers  as  he  acquitted  himfelf  well  or  ill.  This 
tranfa6\ion,  I  know,  is  denied  by  fome  Chriftians.  I  (hall 
not  difpute  the  matter  with  them  :  others  have  done  it.  I  now 
take  it  for  granted.  And  if  they  will  not  fuppofe  if,  it  is  but 
the  lofs  of  this  reafon.  And  let  them  if  they  can  put  a  better 
in  its  room.  Upon  fuppofition,  that  there  was  fuch  a  tranfac- 
tion,  and  that  it  was  juft,  as  we  muft  allow  all  to  be,  whereof 
God  is  the  author,  it  was  not  only  equal,  but  in  point  of  wif- 
dom,  apparently  nccelTary,  or  at  Jeaft,  highly  fuitablc,  that 
all  concerned  in  this  tranfa6\ion  (hould  be  brought  into  being, 
to  reap  the  fruits  of  it.  But  this  was  impolTible  if  the  world 
had  not  been  fpared.  2.  God,  in  fparing  the  world,  had  a 
defign  of  mercy  upon  fome.  And  many  of  them  were  to  pro- 
ceed from  fomt  of  the  worft  (inners.  He  defigned  to  favc  fome 
in  all  ages,  and  in  moft  places.  Their  progenitors  mud  there- 
fore, of  neceflity,  be  kept  alive.  He  bears  with  the  provoking 
carriage  of  evil  men  ;  becaufe  out  of  their  loins  he  intends 
to  extract  others,  whom  he  will  form  for  the  glory  of  his 
grace,  3.  God  is  patient  toward  (inners,  to  manifell  the  equity 
of  his  future  juflice  upon  them.  When  men  are  fpared  and 
continue  in  (in,  the  pleas  of  infirmity  and  miflake  are  cut  off, 
and  they  are  convi6led  of  malice.  They  are  filenccd,and  on- 
lookers   fatisfied,    that    feverity  is  juftly    exercifed   on   them. 

G  s 


542  An   inquire   into    the        chap,  x. 

Quanta  Dei  9;:a^Ts  Judicium  tardum  eft,  tanfo  magis  jnftmn^. 
As  patience,  uhile  it  is  exercifed,  is  the  fiJence  o't  his  juaice; 
io  when  it  is  abjfed,  it  filences  men's  complaints  againfl  his 
juftice.  Other  reafons  of  this  conduct  ue  might  glean" from  the 
fcrintures  :  but  my  defigh  allows  me  not  to  infill.  Nor  indeed 
do  they  dcfcend  {o  low  as  to  fatisfy  curious  wits.  Lo  thcfe 
are  parts  of  his  ways  and  aims,  bui  hoic  little  a  portion  V5 
keard,  that  is,  even  by  revelation,  knotcn  of  him'/  fays  Job, 
chap.  xxvl.  iii^, 

5.  The  world,  or  finners  in  it,  are  fpared,  not  by  a  proper 
reprieve,  that  is,  a  delay  of  punilhment,  after  the  offenders  are 
taken  up,  queifionsd,  tried,  conviaed,  and  folemnly  condemn- 
ed; the  v/ay,  manner  and  time  of  their  punifiiment  fixed,  by 
a  judicial  application  of  the  o^eneral  threatening  of  the  law  in 
this  particular  cafe,  by  the  judge  comipetent,  and  the  fentence 
plainly  intimated  ;  a  delay  of  the  execution  after  this,  if  it  is  of 
the  judge's  proper  motion,  if  the  offender  is  not  imprifoned,  if 
he  is  employed,  and  if  favours  are  conferred  upon  hiui,  and  o- 
bedience  required  of  him,  gives  hopes  of  impunity  and  efcape  ; 
and  if  the  perfon*?  commit  not  new  offences,  without,  at  leaft, 
an  appearance  of  iufincerity,  they  are  very  feldom  condemn- 
ed upon  the  firft  fentence:  but  finners  are  fpared  by  a  for- 
bearance, or  wife  and  jufl  connivance,  if  the  word  would  not 
offend.  The  Governor  of  the  world  knows  and  fees  the  car- 
riage of  finners,  is  aware  of  their  fins,  and  keeps  fiience  for  a 
time  ;  but  yet  keeps  an  eye  upon  them,  calls  them  not  intoquef- 
lion,  puts  oflfthe  trial,  lakes  them  not  up,  as  it  were,  and 
Tvinks  at  them.  Now  all  this  may  be  jufi ly  done  for  a  time  ;  the 
finners  may  be  employed,  and  a^s  of  bounty,  for  holy  and  wife 
ends,  may  be  conferred  on  them,  and  exercifed  towards  them, 
and  that  without  the  lead  injur{ice,without  any  dcfign  of  pardon- 
in.q: ;  as  the  fequci  of  th'is  difcourfe  will  more  fully  clear. 

6.  This  forbearance  of  God  is  wife,  juff  and  holy  :  for  1,  Hp 
is  the  only  competent  judge,  as  to  the  time  of  puniihing  ofi^endeis. 
It  cannot  be  made  appear,  that  he  may  not  thus  delay,  even 
where  he  has  no  thought  of  pardoning.  2.  It  implies  no  approba- 
tion of  the  faultR  formerly  committed,  or  thofe  they  may  commit^ 
during  this  interval  of  time,  fince  he  has  fufficiently  feOified  a- 
gain!)  them  by  the  laws  he  has  made,  which  forbid  them  by  the 
penalty  annexed  io  thofe  laws,  and  by  examples  of  his  ieverity 

upon 
*  «  The  flower  that  the  Judgment  of  Gcd  is,  it  is  the  ir.cre  jull." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      245 

upon  others,  which  have  not  beea  wanting  in  any  generation. 
Thefe  may  fuflficiently  acquit  him,  however  for  a  time  he  keeps 
iilenr,  and  conceal,  as  it  were,  his  knowledge  of  the  offences  of 
jome,  or  his  refentments  againii  them,  on  account  of  them.  3.  He 
accompiilhes  purpofes  worthy  of  him;  which  are  fufticient  to  juf- 
tify  him  in  this  conduct,  while  he  keeps  iilence,  and  carries  to 
them  as  if  there  were  no  offence,  or  he  knew  none,  and  they  go 
on  in  their  rebellion,  or  fecret  pra(Stices  againft  his  law  and  go- 
vernment. Impudent  offenders  have  no  place  left,  either  for 
(ieniai  or  exeufc  of  their  crimes,  or  complaints  againfi  the  fe- 
verity  of  his  refentments.  Spectators  are  made  to  lee  that  it 
is  not  infirmity  or  miilake,  but  fixed  alienation  or  enmity  that 
is  fo  Iharply  punilhed.  He  ferves  hinfelf  of  them,  and  makes 
them,  though  they  mean  not  To,  carry  on  the  defigns  of  his  glo- 
ry, either  in  helping  or  trying,  or  bringing  into  being  perions, 
whom  he  has  defigns  of  mercy  upon.  And  fure  he  may  juitlydo 
this,  fince  jiot  only  he  has  the  beft  title  to  their  obedience; 
but  he  has  all  the  reafon  and  right  in  the  world  to  ufe  that  life, 
while  he  fpares  it,  for  what  purposes  he  pleafes,  which  they  have 
forfeited  tojuftice.  Who  can  blame  him,  if  fometimes  he  fpj.res 
fecret  plotters, and  lets  them  goon  till  their  plots  are  fufficienily 
ripened  for  their  convicfion,  and  others'  fatisfa(Stion.  Nor  is 
ihere  af^y  ground  to  quarrel,  if  he  deal  even  with  tiic  worft,  as 
equal  judges  do  with  the  mother,  guilty  of  fomc  manifcft  crime; 
they  not  only  fpare  and  delay  the  execution,  till  the  child  whom 
(hey  defign  mercy  to.  Is  brought  forth  ;  but  do  not  take  notice 
of  her,  or  intimate  even  a  purpofe  of  puniihment,  till  after- 
wards, iell  the  child  (liould  fuffer  by  the  mother's  defpair 
and  grief.  4.  This  is  yet  more  remarkably  jul^  in  God,  who 
can  on  the  one  hand  fecure  the  criminal,  fo  that  jufiice  lliall  not 
luffer  by  the  delay,  and  on  the  other,  that  t'ne  criminal  fha'l 
not  run  out  into  thofe  impieties,  that  would  crol's  the  ends,  en- 
danger the  fafety,  or  wrong  the  reputation  of  his  governmcnf, 
w,ith  thofe  who  are  capable  of  making  an  equal  eliimatc  of 
tilings. 

7.  It  was  every  way  fuitable  and  neceffary  that  the  perfons  thus 
fii;ared,(hould  becontinucd  under  a  moral  governmenf.They  were 
not  to  be  ruled  by  mere  force;  i.  Becaufe  they  are,  while  under 
fuch  a  forbearance,  capable  of  fome  fort  of  a  moral  government. 
When  a  prince  deals  with  perfons,  whom  he  knows  to  be  on 
treaibnable  plots  agalnO:  his  government,  and  conceals  his  re- 
fentment,   h*  (i'lU  manages  ihem  as  fubjecfG,  and  continues  them 

under 


244  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE         ckap.  x. 

under  a  government ;  nor  is  he  faulty  in  doing  fo.  2.  They  arc 
not,  while  under  fuch  a  forbearance,  capable  of  any  other  p;o- 
vcrnment ;  for  if  once  the  Ruler  of  the  world  begin  to  deal  in  a 
way  of  force  and  juflice  with  them,  then  thir.  forbearance  is  at 
an  end.  3.  It  were  a  manifeft  reproach  to  the  Governor  cf  the 
world,  if  they  were  fuppofed  under  no  government  at  all.  be- 
fides,  on  this  fuppofiiion,  the  ends  of  his  forbearance  could  not 
be  reached.  And  moreover,  the  moial  dependence  cf  creatures 
on  their  Crcator,which  can  only  be  maintained  either  in  ths  way, 
or  by  putting  them  under  the  penal  fandlion  of  the  law,  would 
bediflolved,  which  cannot  be  admitted. 

8.  Sinners  under  this  difpefation  are  dill  under  the  law  of  crea- 
ation  :  it  is  true  this  law  can  no  longer  be  the  means  of  convey- 
ing a  title  to  the  great  and  principal  reward  ;  but  that  is  their 
own  fault,  and  not  the  governor's  nor  the  law's.  But  notwlth- 
Aanding  of  this,  they  are  fiill  under  it,  and  it  continues  the  in- 
ftrument  of  God's  government  over  them.  For  i.  The  ground 
of  obedience  flill  continues,  although  fome  of  the  motives,  vea, 
the  principal  encouragement,  I  mean,  eternal  rewards,  are  for- 
feited. The  obligation  to  obedience  can  never  otherwife  be  dif- 
folved,  than  by  the  infiifiing  of  a  capital  puniflimenf, which  puts 
out  of  all  poflibility  of  yielding  any  obedience.  Spme,  I  knciv 
make  the  power  aiid  right  of  obliging,  to  confjft  merely  in  a 
power  of  rewarding  and  punlthing:  but  this  iseafily  cpnvi^led  cf 
fa Ifc hood  :  and  although  the  learned  Mr.  Gaftrcl  has  advanced 
this,  in  his  fermcrs  at  Boyle's  Le^^ure,  yet  vvc  have  no  reafcn 
?o  receive  it,  as  Beconfal  in  his  treatife  of  the  Lazu  of  Nature, 
and  others  have  fufficiently  c'earcd.  2.  This  law  is  lufficient  to 
ar(wer  the  dcfigns  of  this  forbearance,  and  God's  rule  ever  thern 
who  live  under  it  aijd  by  it.  It  has  not  Jcfl  its  directive  pow- 
er ,-  but  it  is  able  fufficiently  to  inOruCl,  at  leafl:  in  thefc  du- 
^tics,  either  as  to  God,  ourfelves  cr  others,  that  are  of  abfolutc 
nccflBty  to  keep  fome  order  and  dpccium  in  the  world,  carry 
en  regularly  the  propagation  of  n^ankind,  and  the  like.  It  is 
manifcdly  fufiicient  to  be  a  tcO  to  try  men's  willingnefs  to  obey, 
and  convince  rren  of  wilfulnefs  in  their  rebellion  ;  and  to  be  a 
Handing  njonument  of  God's  hoiinefs ;  yea,  it  continues  to 
have  that  force  upon  the  confciences  of  the  generality,  as  to  be 
a  check  Jo  keep  tiiem  from  running  into  enormities  fubverfive 
of  ail  order  and  fociely,  and  deftructive  to  the  other  ends  of 
'-OQ^'i  patic.-iCe.      2.  Experience  fuiiy  cltar^^  that  men  ftill  pay 

reear^ 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       245 

regard  to  this  law,  and  this  Is  the  only  law  that  mcndcftltutc  of 
a  revelation  own. 

9.  While  God  faw  meet  to  continue  this  forbearance,  it  was 
not  neceflary  nor  fuitable,  that  he  (hould  plainly,  particularly 
and  folemnlv  intimate  all  the  length  he  defigned  to  carry  his 
refentments  againft  offenders,  i.  There  was  no  neceffity  of 
this  towards  the  clearing  of  Gcd's  holincfs  ;  this  being  fufficient- 
ly  done  by  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  its  penally,  and  ma- 
ny particular  examples.  2.  This  would  have  undone  the  dif- 
pcnfation  whereof  we  have  been  fpeaking.  3.  This  is  utterly 
inconfiftent  with  all  the  defigns  of  it.  Men  had  been  driven 
into  defpair,  and  fo  all  moral  government  had  been  diflblved. 

10.  Yea,  it  was  confiftent  with  his  holinefs,  and  fuitable  to 
his  wifdom,  to  permit  men  to  fall  into  fin,  very  great  fins,  and 
for  a  time  to  go  on  in  them.  God  can  neither  do  any  thing 
that  is  unworthy,  nor  omit  any  thing  that  is  worthy  of  him,  of 
3  moral  kind.  And  it  is  certain  in  fa«5t,  that  fuch  fins  and 
enormities  he  has  permitted  :  and  therefore,  however  flrange 
it  appears  to  us,  that  a  holy  God,  who  could  have  re- 
ftralned,  fbould  permit  thofe  things  ;  yet  fincc  he,  who  can 
do  no  evil,  has  done  it,  wc  muft  conclude  this  altogether  con- 
fident with  his  holinefs.  And  it  is  manifeftly  fo  with  his  wifdom, 
fince  no  injury  is  done  to  his  holinefs.  For  1.  By  this  means 
finners  give  full  proof,  what  a  height  their  enmity  againft  God 
is  come  to.  2.  They  are  the  fitter  to  excrcife  his  own  peo- 
ple. And  3.  They  are  riper  for  the  ftrokes  he  defigns  to  in- 
fli6l  on  them. 

11.  Notwithftanding  of  all  this,  it  was  meet  and  neccfia- 
ry  that  fome  offenders  ihould  be  remarkably  punllhcd,  and 
fomc  bounds  fet  to  offences  ;  and  more  efpecially  thofe  of- 
fences which  crofs  the  defigns  of  God's  forbearance,  and  tend 
to  diflfolve  the  government  and  order,  which  it  was  neccf- 
fary  God  (hould  maintain  in  the  world.  And  hence  it  has 
come  to  pafs,  that  not  the  greatcfi  fins,  fuch  as  thefe  certainly 
are,  which  immediately  ftrike  againft  God,  but  thefe  which 
ftrikc  againft  order  and  government,  have  been  moil  remarka- 
bly punifbed  in  all  ages,  as  might  be  made  appear  by  innumer- 
able inftances  of  the  remarkable  punilbment  cf  murders,  trea- 
sons, and  undutifulnefs  to  parents.  This  is  congruous  to  jiif- 
tice,  not  only  on  the  above-mentioned  account,  but  on  this, 
that  the  notices  concerning  thefe  lafl  fort  of  evils  are  much  more 
clear  in  raoft  inftances,  than  thefe  which  refpect  the  former. 

12.  It 


245  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  x. 

T2.  Tr  Is  every  way  fuit.ible  to  the  wifdom,  (incerlty  and  ho- 
i'neis  of  God  ;  yea,  and  of  abfolute  neccfiity  to  the  defign  of 
this  forbearance,  that  h^  exercife  bounty  in  lefiTer  things  ;  fucii 
as  the  good  things  of  this  life  are  :  and  that  he  vouchfafe  thofe 
inenta]  endowments  to  fome  of  the  fpared  finners,  which  are  ne- 
ceiJary  toward  the  maintenance  of  that  government,  which  God 
xvas  to  keep  up  among  them;  fuch  are  civil  wifdom,  inven- 
tion, courage,  &c.  Thefe  he  may  give  without  the  leaft  inti* 
luation  of  any  dcfign  of  fpecial  mercv.  For  what  relatioa 
Lave  theie  things  to  fpecial  mercy,  which  are  heaped  in  abun- 
dance on, the  word  of  men.  However,  that  it  was  fit  thefe 
tilings  would  be  beftowed  upon  fome  in  this  cafe,  is  evident ; 
becaufe,  i.  Eternal  rewards  are  now  forfeited,  and  there  would 
have  been  nothing  to  induce  to  obedience  if  this  had  not  been, 
:^.  Hereby  he  gives  a  witnefs  to  his  own  goodnefs,  which  ag- 
gravates oifencss  committed  again»^  hiai.  3.  Hereby  he  draws 
on  men  to  obedience,  or  rather  to  cjo  thcfe  pieces  of  fervice, 
which  are  in  their  own  nature,  fuch  as  he  allows  and  requires, 
although  they  defjgn  not  his  fervice,  but  their  own  pleafure  and 
profit.  4.  Hereby  he  clears  fcores  •.  ith  finners,  while  he  fufFers 
FiOt  what  Is  even  but  pretended  fervice,  to  pafs  without  a  re- 
ward, which  is  fufficient  to  ihew  what  a  kind  rewarder  he 
would  have  been,  if  they  had  indeed  obeyed.  5.  Hereby  he 
tuts  ofF  ail  excufe  for  their  continuance  in  difobedience.  6. This 
condu6i  gives  them  an  innocent  occafion  of  discovering  latent 
v.'ickednefs,  wliich  otherwife  they  would  have  had  no  accefs  to 
fhew,  and  keeps  from  that  nmr  defpair  which  would  have 
marred  the  defi 2,n  of  God's  forbearance. 

13.  Xtiefe  vj-jchfafements  of  divine  bounty  lead  to  a  fort  of. 
repentance;  not  that  to  which  the  promife  of  pardon  is  joined  in 
the  gofpeL  For  i.  They  give  eminent  difcoveries  of  the  good- 
nefs of  that  God  whom  we  have  offended,  and  confequenily  of 
the  foijy  of  cfiendiiig  him,  which  na'urally  leads  to  lorrow  or 
regret.  2.  They  ilrengthen,  as  all  benefits  do,  the  orignal  ob- 
ligation to  obedience.  3.  They  let  us  fee,  that  obedience  is 
r.ot  altogether  fruiiiefs,  fince  they  may  expecl  lei's  levere  rclent- 
mer.ts  if  they  return  ;  yea,  -may  expect  fome  Ihare  in  this  bounty, 
and  are  not  under  an  impofBbility  of  mercy,  tor  any  thing  they 
can  know. 

14.  After  all,  I  do  yet  fee  no  rcafon  to  think,  that  they,  who 
are  luercly  under  fuch  a  dii'penfatipn  as  this,  which  I  take  to  be 
the  cafe  of  the  Heathen  world,  are  under  a  Liw  of  grace  ;  which 

aiiuresj 


PRlNCirLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       247 

alTures,  that  upon  a  return  to  forn^er  obedience,  fins  0  all  be 
entirely  pardoned,  and  they  have  accefs  to  eternal  rewards.  I 
grant  it  highly  probable,  that  if  God  had  not  intended  pjace  to 
lome,  fuch  a  dlfpenfation  had  never  been,  i  admit,  that  this 
difpenfation  is  fubfervient  to  a  defign  of  grace  upon  fome.  I 
further  allow,  that  there  is  no  abfolute  impoffibility  of  the  fal- 
vaticn  of  perfons,  however  deeply  guilty,  who  are  net  vet  un- 
der the  penalty  :  but  if  they  are  faved,  it  mud  be  by  fome 
means  orvvaV  revealed  by  God,  and  luperadded  to  all  the  for- 
mer, which  I  can  never  fee  to  amount  to  any  law  of  grace, 
fmce  it  is  manifeft,  i.  That  all  this  may  be  exercifed  toward 
them  whom  God  in  the  end  defigns  everlafiinglv  to  puniPn.  He 
7/7^^1-^  ^"^^'"^  ^ong-fuffering  to  the  vefjels  of  wrath  fitted  tc 
dejtriitnon,  2.  1  here  is  nothing  in  this  whole  difpenfation, 
that  in  the  lead  intimates  any  purpofc  of  God  to  pafs  hv  former 
olTenccs,  either  abfolutely  or  upon  condition.  3.  In  fa6\  it  has 
never  been  found,  that  ever  this  difpenfation  hassled  any  one  to 
that  fincere  repentr.nce,  which  muft  be  allowed  necelTarv,  in 
order  to  pardon.  And  I  dare  not  fay,  that  God  ever  did  ap- 
point means  for  fuch  an  end,  which  after  fo  long  a  trial  fhould 
never  anfwer  it.  4.  All  whom  God  has  pardoned,  or  of  whom 
we  may  fay,  that  he  has  brought  them  to  repentance,  have  been 
brought  by  other  means.  So  that  upon  the  whole,  I  fee  no 
ground  for  afleriing  an  univerfal  law  of  grace. 

As  what  has  been  above  faid  takes  cfi'  the  principal  pretence 
for  fuch  an  univerfal  law  of  grace,  u-hich  fome  feem  {o  fond  of  ; 
fo  if  any  fuch  is  aiTerted,  it  muft  be  owned  to  be  a  law  o^  a 
very  univerfal  tenor,  as  being  that  wherein  all  mankind  are 
concerned.  It^  muft  be  allowed  a  law  defigned  to  take  olfthc 
force  of  the  original  law,  concreated  with  our  nature,  that  ne- 
ceflTarily  refults  from  the  nature  of  God  and  man,  and  their  na- 
tural relation,  at  leaft  as  to  one  inftance,  I  mean  the  penal  fanc- 
tTon,  in  cafe  of  fin.  It  muft  be  allowed  to  be  a  law  not  merely 
djredive  as  to  duty,  but  defigned  to  tender  undeferved  favours 
to  finful  man.  Now  he  that  can  think  a  i^w,  (or  call  them  many) 
dubious  anions,  that  is,  aaions  capable  of  another,  vea,  con^ 
trary  conflruction,  afuffici'ent  promulgation  of  fcch  a 'lavv,  as  is 
of  fo  univerfal  extent, as  derogates,  atleaft  in  one  inOance,  of  fo 
great  moment,  from  a  law  fo  fiVmly  and  folcmnlyeftablifned,  with 
out  any  known  provifion  for  its  honour,  injured  bv  fo  m.any  fins; 
and  finally  that  tenders  fuch  great  favours  to  the  Uanft^relTbrscf 


245  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE        giia?  xr« 

it,  may  believe  what  he   pleafes.     I  mufl  own,  this  one  confi- 
deration  is  with  me  enough  to  fink  that  notion. 

But  to  conclude  this  whole  matter,  upon  which  we  have  dwelt 
fo  long.  Upon  the  nicefl  furvey  of  occurrences  in  the  Heathen 
world,  lean  difcern  nothing  that  favours  of  any  acquaintance 
with  that  forgivencfs  that  is  with  God  ;  untefs  it  is  that  general- 
ly entertained  notion  o^  xh^  placability  of  their  deities.  This  no- 
tion, I  make  no  doubt,  had  its  rife  from  revelation^  nnd  was 
continued  bv  tradition.  And  feveral  things  did  concur  to  the 
prefervation  of  this,  while  other  notices  that  had  the  fame  rife 
were  loft  ;  the  apparent  necelTity  of  it  to  man  in  his  prefent  fm- 
ful  condition  ;  the  fuitablen^fs  of  it  to  lay  a  foundation  for  thai 
worfliip,  to  which  the  remaining  natural  notices  of  a  Deity  urged 
them,  and  which  was  of  indifpenfible  neccffity  toward  the  fup- 
port  of  human  government ;  the  darknefs  and  blindnefs  of  men 
as  to  the  exceeding  finfulnefs  of  fin;  the  holinefs  of  God's  na- 
ture, and  the  ftrong  inclination  all  men  have  to  be  favoura- 
ble, even  to  their  faults,  did  contribute  not  a  little  toward  its 
Support,  Finally,  this  placability  did  not  fo  much  rcfpc6l  the 
one  true  God,  of  whom  they  had  very  little  knowledge,  as 
their  own  li<Stitious  deities,  which  they  put  in  the  room  of  the 
true  God.  And  it  is  obvious,  that  when  men  took  upon  them 
to  fet  up  gods,  they  would  be  fure  to  frame  fuch  as  might 
agree  with  their  own  apprehenfion^,  and  pafs  by  their  faults 
with  as  little  difficulty  as  they  committed  them.  Whatever  there 
is  to  as  this,  we  have  no  reafon  to  think  that  this  Is  a  natural  no- 
tice, it  being  neither  felf-cvidcnt,  nor  certainly  deducible  from 
principles  that  are  fuch. 


CHAP.       XI. 

Proving  the  Infufficiency   of  Natural  Religion  to  eradicate  our 
Inclinations  to  Sin,  or  fuhdue  its  Power. 

I  Think  we  have  faid  enough  to  demonf^rate  the  infufficiency 
of  natural  religion,  to  fatisfy  us  as  to  the  way  how  we  may 
obtain  the  removal  of  guilt  or  xhc  pardon  of  fin*  Let  us  now 
fee  whether  it  is  able  to  remove  the  corruption  cf  nalure,  and 
fubduc   or  eradicate  our  inclinations  lo  fin. 

Before  we  enter  dire«S^ly  on   this,  it  will  not  be  Impertinent, 
if  it  is  not  plainly   necefl'ary,  that   we  fay   fomcwluU  concern- 
ing 


PRIMCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DESITS.       14$ 

ing  the  nature   of  this  corruption*     We  (hall  therefore  offer 
the  few  following  hints   concerning  it. 

!•  It  is  moft  certain,  that  man  has  corrupt  inclinations.  I 
think  this  will  fcarce  be  denied  ;  fince  it  is  beyond  contradic- 
tion evident,  that  the  bulk  of  mankind  in  all  ages,  have  run 
headlong  into  thofe  courfes  which  reafon  condemns  as  con- 
trary to  the  law,  under  which  we  arc  made.  The  law  con- 
demns, reafon  juftihes  the  law,  and  proclaims  thofe  courfes 
unworthy  of  us  ;  confcience  checks  and  fometimes  torments, 
and  yet  finners  run  on.  Can  all  this  be  without  corrupt  in- 
clinations fwaying,  yea,  as  it  were,  forcibly  driving  that  way? 
No  fure. 

2.  It  is  Certain,  that  not  only  there  are  fuch  incli- 
nations in  man,  but  that  they  arc  exceedingly  ftrong  and  forci- 
ble. Our  own  reafon  condemns  thofe  a6tions,  and  cries  (hame 
on  the  fmner's  confcience,  prcfages  the  refentments  of  the 
righteous  God,  the  evil  e{fe6ls  of  them  are  vifible,  and  they 
are  felt  to  be  de[lru6live  to  our  health,  ruining  to  our  reputa- 
tion and  eftates,  inconfiflcnt  with  our  inward  peace  ;  yea,  in 
a  icw  inllances,  human  law  provides  terrible  punifhments : 
and  yet,  in  fpitc  of  all  thefe  flrong  barriers,  we  are  carried 
down  with  the  l^reara  :  nor  can  the  mofl  rational  confidcra- 
tions,  from  intereft,  honour  or  prudence  ftop  our  career.  Cer- 
tainly the  force  of  inclination,  that  carries  over  all  thefe,  mud 
be  great. 

3.  It  fcems  plainly  natural  and  Congenial  to  us.  I  (hall  not 
nicely  inquire  in  what  fenfe  it  is  fo.  1  am  far  from  thinking, 
that  our  natures  as  at  firft  made,  were  created  with  it.  I  have 
faid  enough  before  to  prove  this  impoflible :  but  I  mean,  that 
as  our  natures  now  are,  however  they  came  to  be  fo,  it  is  an  in- 
feparable  appendage  of  them,  cleaves  to  them,  and  proceeds  not 
merely  from  cuftom,  and  is  not  acquired,  though  it  is  often  im- 
proved by  cuftom.  Now  this  feems  evident  from  many  things, 
I.  The  univcrfality  of  it.  All  men,  in  all  ages,  in  all  places, 
and  in  all  circumftances,havc  fuch  vitious  inclinations.  I  do  not 
fay  that  every  individual  is  proud,  ambitious,  covetous,  revenge- 
ful, paffionate  and  luftful.  No,  but  every  one  has  fome  one  or 
other  of  thefe,  or  the  like,  breaking  out ;  which  fays,  the 
fpring  is  within,and  is  ftrong  ;  though  the  conftitution  of  our  bo- 
dies, the  climates  we  live  under,  our  education  and  circumf^ances 
of  life,  have  dammed  in  fome  of  them,  and  cutout  channels  for 
others  of  them.  Now  it  is  plainly  unaccountable  how  all  men 
fhoiild  be  thus  corrupt,  if  not  naturally  fot     No  parallel  inftance, 

H  h  in 


^5o  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE        chap.  xi. 

in  any  fort,  can  be  given,  where  ciny  thing  not  natural  and  con- 
l^enial,  at  leaft  as  to  its  principle  and  inclination,  has  obtained 
Tucb  an  univerlal  fway.  2.  It  waits  not  till  we  are  grown  and 
framed  by  education,  cunom,  engagement  and  inventions  ;  but 
makes  ftrong,  difccrnible,  and  fenfible  eruptions  in  infancy 
and  child- hood.  As  foon  as  wc  are  capable,  and  very  ofr,  while 
one  would  think  us  fcarceiy  (o,  by  reafon  cf  age,  wc  are  proud, 
revengeful,  covetous,  &c.  vvhicii  fays  this  is  congenial  3,  It 
Is  often  fcen,  that  thcfe  corruptions  break  out  in  cur  young 
years,  which  neither  education,  example,  circumllanccs,  nor 
any  thing  elfe  but  a  corrupted  nature,  can  give  any  encourage- 
ment to.  4.  Yea  more,  how  ftrong  are  theTe  inclinations,  and 
that  very-early,  which  are  dlfcouraged,  oppofed,  borne  down, 
and  have  all  outward  occafions  cut  off  from  them.  One  is  paf- 
ficnate  among  calni  people,  though  he  is  punilhed  for  it  and 
fees  it  not.  Another  is  ambitious  and  proud  among  fober  peo- 
ple, in  mean  circumilances,  where  there  is  no  ex2mple  to  ex- 
cite arnbiiion,  no  theatre  to  a6t  it  upon,  and  tlic  beginnings  arc 
curbed  by  precept,  inftru6\ion,  reproof,  challifcments  and  ex- 
ample. 5.  Thofe  things  are  evidently  interwoven  with,  and 
ftrengthened  by  the  very  conftitutions  of  our  bodies,  and  cli- 
mates under  vv-hich  we  live.  Hence  there  are  domeftic  and  na- 
tional vices,  which  cleave  to  fom.e  families  and  nations.  6.  The 
beilj  the  mofl  fober,  and  freell  from  difcernlbie  eruptions  of 
cctruptionj  yet  do  own  they  find  the  inclinations  flrong,  and 
driving  them  into  indifcernible  ztis  ccrrefponcient  to  them. 
7.  They  who  deny  the  force  and  being  of  thefe  inclinations, 
and  who  pretend  that  the  will  of  man  is  able  to  mafter  all 
thefe,  yet  cannot  but  otvn,  that  there  are  fuch  inclinations; 
and  as  for  the  pretended  ability  cf  the  will  to  conquer  them, 
thev  give  the  leaR  proof  of  it  who  pretend  moil:  to  it  :  for  if  thu 
will  is  thus  able,  and  if,  as  they  pretend,  they  have  fufficient 
moral  ars^uments  which  perfuade  to  it, why  is  it  not  done  ?  What 
ftops  it  V  8.  I  (hall  only  farther  offer  the  teftimonies  of  fome 
few  among  the  Heathens.  Timus  the  LocriaUy  who  lived  be- 
fore Plato,  tells  us  in  his  difcourfcs,  '*  That  vitiofity  comes 
**  fiom  our  parents  and  firft  piinciples,  rather  than  from  ne- 
*'  cligence  and  diforder  of  public  manners;  brcaufe  we  never 
**  part  from  thofe  actions  which  lead  us  to  imitate  the  primitive 
**   fins  cf  our  parents  *.*'     Plato  tells  us,  that,  **   In  times  paO: 

''  the 

*  Gale's  Cotirt  cf  the  GcntiJes,  Part  4.  Lib,  i.  Cap.  4.  Par,  2, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       251 


'■  the  divine  nature  flcv.rill-icd  in  men  ;  but  at  length  it  mixed 
**  with  nK>rtal,and  c^vOfcoiTrr.v  r;9'^^  human  cullcms  prevailed  to  the 
*'  ruin  of  mankind  :  and  fromi  this  fource  there  followed  an  in- 
**  undation  of  evils  on  m.en.  Hence  he  calls  corruption  voo-©.  r 
*«  xxia  (pvTivt  the  natural  dIfeafe,or  dli'"eafe  of  nature,  becaufe  the 
*'  nature  of  mankind  is  greatly  degenerated  and  depraved,  and 
*'  all  !Tunner  of  dlforders  infeft  human  nature  :  and  men  being 
**  impott»nt,  are  torn  in  pieces  by  their  own  lufts,  as  b)^  fo  ma- 
**  ny  '-vi'd  horfes.  Hence  Democritus  is  faid  to  affirm  the  dif- 
**  eifesofthe  foul  to  be  fo  great,  that  if  it  were  opened,  it 
**  would  appear  to  be  a  fepulchre  of  all  manner  of  evils." 
Ariftotle  tells  us,  **  That  there  is  in  us  iomewhat  naturally 
**  repugnant  to  right  reafon,  '7T'.:pvz^^  cc-^ii;3xrov  ro?  Xoy  .*"  Sene- 
ca, Epilt.  r^o.  gives  us  a  very  remarkable  account  of  his  thoughts 
in  thir.  r.iailer.  The  whole  were  worthy  to  be  tratifcribed,  but 
it  is  too  long.  I  ihall  tranflate  a  part  of  it.  **  Why  do  we 
**  deceive  ourfeives  ?  Our  evil  is  not  from  without  ;  It  is  fixed 
**  in  our  very  bowels,  Jlibi  f  All  fins  are  in  all  men,  but  all 
do  not  appear  in  each  man:  he  that  hath  one  fin  hath  all. 
We  fay,  that  all  men  are  intemperate,  avaricious,  luxuri- 
ous, malignant ;  not  that  thefe  fins  appear  in  all  ;  but  be- 
caufe they  may  be,  yea,  are  in  all,  ahiiougti  latent.  A 
**  man  may  be  guilty,  though  he  do  no  hurt.  Sins  are  per- 
fect before  they  break  forth  intoeffed."  It  is  worthy  of  our 
cbfervation,  what  Mr.  Gale  tells  us,  after  he  has  quoted  thefe 
words,  viz.  tl^at  Janfenius  breaks  forth  into  a  rapture  upon 
hearing  thefe  philofophers  philofophize  m.ore  truly  about  the 
corruption  of  man's  nature,  than  Pelagians  and  others  of  late. 

But  the  Oraclss  of  Reajon  tell  us,  that  it  is  denied  "  that 
**  the  kpfe  of  nature  is  univerfal,  becaufe  fome  through  the 
**  courfe  of  their  lives,  have  proved  more  inclinable  or  prone  to 
**  virtue  than  to  vice."  I  have  fpoke  to  this  before,  but  I  add, 
I.  This  is  not  enough,  that  they  are  more  prone  to  virtue  than 
to  vice:  for  the  queftion  is,  ¥/hether  they  have  inclinations  to 
vice?  and  net.  Whether  the  contrary  are  Wronger?  2.  This 
cannot  be  preter^ded  to  be  the  cafe  with  many.  Now,  fmce  the 
queftion  is  about  a  religion  fufncienl  for  all  mankind,  if  any  of 
them  have  fuch  a  diftemper,  and  natural  religion  provide  nd 
cure,  it  is  infulHcient.  3.  It  is  not.  Whether  there  are  men 
that  have  ht<za  prone  to  fome  virtues,  and  averfe  from  iome  vi^ 

ces, 

*  ArL^,  E:hick,  Lib.  t.  Cap.  13.  t  ^'  F.lfe where," 


252  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE  chap.  xi. 

ces,  poflibly  fcandalous  fins?  But,  Whether  there  have  been 
men  inclined  to  no  fin,  prone  to  all  virtue?  If  they  affert  iuch 
a  one,  Hrew  us  the  man.  We  cannot  believe  any  fucb,  fince 
all  wc  know  are  othcrwife,  till  we  lee  a  condefccnfion.  4.  It  is 
not  the  bufinefs  whether  men  have  done  virtuous  a61s  ordinarily, 
that  is,  the  material  a6ls  of  virtue  :  for  corruption  may  rum 
freely  out  in  this  hidden  channel.  A  man  may  be  ambi- 
tious, proud,  and  live  among  perfons,  with  whom  vice  is  de- 
cried, open  vice  I  mean,  and  therefore  affeds  a  great  exa^t- 
nefs  as  to  morality.  This  is  good  :  but  this  is  all  but  a  facrifice 
to  ambition.  One  luft  Is  the  principal  idol,  all  the  reft  are  fa- 
crificed  to  it.  Corruption  turns  not  troublelome,  and  is  pieafed, 
if  it  get  vent  any  way.  A  ftrong  fpring,  if  It  can  get  a  vent 
under  ground,  may  prefs  for  a  vent  above  ;  yet  it  will  caiiiy  hp. 
rcftrained  there.        • 

New  this  being  the  cafe  plainly  with  man,  it  Is  impofiible  for 
him  to  reach  happinefs,  while  this  corruption  remains  ;  nor 
can  he  be  fure  of  acceptance  with  God.  While  things  are 
thus,  nature  is  imperfe6i,  man  is  out  of  order,  reafon,  the  no- 
bler part,  is  at  under,  and  paflions,  the  brutal  part,^bear  the 
the  fway.  This  Is  more  unfeemly,  than  to  fee  fervarJs  on.- 
hoy/eSf  whilf.  princes  ivalk  on  Joot.  There  I3  continual  occa- 
fion  for  rcmorfe,  checks,  challenges  of  confcicnce,  and  fears 
of  the  refentment  of  a  holy  God.  There  can  be  no  firm  confi- 
dence of  accefs  to  God,  or  near  fellowship  with  him,  while 
we  entertain  his  enemies  In  our  bofom  ;  nay,  have  them  inter- 
woven, as  it  were,  with  our  natures. 

The  deifts  J  know  make  a  horrible  outcry  againfl  Chriftians, 
for  airerting  this  corruption  of  nature.  Herbert  in  his  book 
de  Veritatey  has  many  b'ttcr  invet^ives  againfl:  the  afferters  of 
it ;  and  yet,  overcome  with  the  evidence  of  truth,  he  is  obliged 
frequently  to  acknowledge  it  plainly:  yea,  not  only  docs  he 
acknowledge  it,  but  he  pleads  this  directly,  in  excufe  of  the 
moft  abominable  wickednefs.  After  he  has  told  us,  that  the 
temperament  or  conRitution  of  our  bodies  have  a  powerful  influ- 
ence to  fway  us  to  fome  fms,  he  fubjoins,  **  Quo  paSo  hand 
**  italevi  ntgotio  damnandos  exiflimo,  qui  ex  f^ioa-vyKo'oc&ia.  alicjua 
**  pravaricaniur.  Q^uemadmodum  i(ritur  flagitii  haud  jujli  ar^ 
**  gueris  lethargum,  dcfidaii,  out  hydropicum  bibacera  \  ita  Jar- 
■  *  ta/fe  ntqut  veneris,  aut  martis  aflro  percitum  7nodo  in  peccan-- 
**  tiuitx  humorum  redundanfiam.,  pofius  qua,vi  pravum  aliquent 
'^  habitum,  dditlum  commode  riiia  profit,     Neque  tamen  me  hie 

*'  coufceierali 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       253 

"  confcderati  cujujvis  patronumjijlo  ;  fed  in  id  folummodo  con- 
**  Undo,  ut  mitiori  fententia  de  lis  Jlatuanius^  qui  corporea, 
**  brutaliy  S  tantum  ncn  nece/faria  propenfions.  in  peccata  pro- 
**  labuntur*"  Well,  here  is  a  handfome  excufe  for  vice.  We  - 
muft  be  as  far  from  condemning  him,  who,  prompted  by  pafiaon. 
Hays  and  murders,  or  hurried  on  by  \\i{i,  commits  rapes  and 
adulteries  ;  as  of  cenfuring  him  who  is  fick  of  a  lethargy,  for 
his  lazinefs  and  indifpofition  to  a6t ;  or  one  that  is  hydropic, 
for  his  immoderate  thirfl.  This  divinity  will  highly  pleafe 
profane  men.  The  falvo  he  fubjoins  is  very  frivolous,  and  de- 
ferves  rather  contempt  than  an  anfwer.  But  to  leave  this,  it 
is  plain  there  are  fuch  inclinations,  and  that  if  they  are  not 
rooted  out  we  are  undone.  What  though  men  might  have 
hopes,  if  thev  but  erred  once,  that  they  might  cafily  obtain  re- 
miflion  ;  yet  furc  it  muft  confound  them,  when  they  lliil  fin  on, 
and  that  out  of  inclination.  Unlefs  therefore  natural  religion 
is  able  to  cure  this  difeale,  and  eradicate  tbofe  inclinations,  it 
ferves  to  no  valuable  purpofc,  at  leafl  it  is  infufficient  as  to  the 
great  ends  of  religion,  our  own  happinefs  or  acceptance  with 
God.  And  that  really  it  cannot  do  {o,  will  be  clear  by  th? 
following  confiderations. 

I.  If  this  corruption  is  congenial  to  our  natures,  as  the  above- 
mentioned  arguments  go  near  to  demonftrate,  and  the  Chiiftian 
religion  fully  proves,  it  is  evident,  that  there  mufl  be  feme 
change  wrought  upon  our  natures.  Now  this  is  more  than  na- 
tural religion  can  pretend  to,  which  knows  nothing  of  regene- 
ration, and  the  fan6lifying  work  of  the  fpirit  of  grace.  I  know 
Plato  and  fome  others  have  talked  of  infpiration,  and  fome  aids 
of  God:  but  this  was  all  but  chat,  amufement,  and  a  few  tink- 
ling words,  which  might  pleafe  the  ears ;  but  what  evidence 
could  they  give,  that  any  fuch  thing  was  attained,  or  attaina- 
ble '  T^U         t. 

2.  J  hough 

*  "  Therefore  I  think  that  thofe  are  not  fo  eafily  to  be  ccndem- 

*'  ned  who  fm  from  any  peculiarity  of  bodily  conftitution.  As,  there- 

**  fore,  one  could  nor  juftly  blame  a  lethargic  perfon  for  being  lazy, 

"  or  a  dropfical  perfon  for  being  defirous  of  drink  ;  fo,  perhaps,  we 

"  ought  not  to  blame  any  one  that  is  prompted  to  fin  by  the  fting  of 

"  luft  or  anger,  provided  that   his   fm  may  be  conveniently  charged 

"  to  the  redundancy  of  peccant  humours,  rather  than  to  any  perverfc 

**  habit.     And  here  I  do  not  fet  inyfelf  up  as   the  advocate  of  every 

"  wicked  man,  but  only  contend  for  this,  that  we  (hould  judge  more 

"  mildly  of  thofe  who  fall  into  fins,  from   a  corporeal,  brutal,  and 

"  airaoft  neceffary  incHnation." 


r,^  AN    INQUIRY     INTO     THE      chap.  xi. 

2,  Though  ihls  were  given  up  ;  yet  of  whatever  nature 
this  corruption  and  iinpotency  is,  call  it  natural  or  moral, 
it  is  certain,  that  it  is  ftrong  ;  natural  religion  cannot  give 
i"ufricient  fecuritv  tliat  it  is  pra6ticable  to  eradicate  it.  We 
JjQO'r  that  fome  ftreams  of  this  corruption  may  be  dammed  in, 
fomc  of  the  lop  branches  lopped  off,  and  fonie  of  the  fruits  of  it 
mav  be  pl-jckcd.  Thisj  in  fo  far  as  it  is  done,  is  good  for 
mankind,  and  ufefid  in  focicty.  Some  of  the  philofophers  have 
gone  a  great  way  in  it,  and  there'oy  have  fliamed  moll  who  are 
called  Chriilans.  But  what  is  all  this  to  the  eradicating  of 
corrupTicn,  purifying  the  minds  of  men,  and  univerfal  confor- 
mity in  heart  to  the  rule  of  duty?  The  attainments  of  philo- 
fophers need  not  here  be  talked  of:  their  virtues  were  but 
fhows,  and  the  {hadows  of  them.  Search  to  the  bottom,  and  you 
will  find,  th^4t  what  they  called  fcjf-denial,  was  only  a  piece 
of  delicate  intcreft  in  order  to  reach  feif-ends:  it  was  but  a 
parting  with  one  thin^:  pleafant  to  ourfelves,  to  gain  a  greater, 
\vhich  13  felfidmefs  to  the  height.  As  for  that  feif-denial, 
which  Chriflianity  teaches,  it  was  not  heard  of,  or  known  in  the 
leafl.  Liberality  was  but  a  mere  trade  of  pride,  which  values 
no  gifts,  provided  it  have  the  glory  of  being  liberal;  modefly 
was  the  art  of  concealing  our  vanity;  civility,  but  an  afFe«5\ed 
preference  of  other  men  before  ourfelves,  to  conceal  how  much 
we  value  ourfelves  above  all  the  world  ;  badifulnefs,  but  an  af- 
fected filence  in  thofe  things,  which  lufts  make  men  think  of 
with  pleafure;  benevolence  or  the  defne  of  obliging  other  men, 
but  a  fecret  dellre  ©rferving  ourfelves, by  getting  them  to  befriend 
us  at  other  times  ;  gratitude,  but  an  impatience  to  acquit  ourfelves 
of  an  obligation,  with  a  Ihamefacedncfs  for  leaving  been  too 
long  beholden  to  otliers,  for  feme  favour  received.  So  that 
sM  thefe  pretended  virtues,  in  j^cneral,  have  only  been  fo  ma- 
ny gaurds  made  ufe  of  bv  felf-love,  to  prevent  our  darling  and 
lecret  vices  froir* -appearing  outwardly.  All  thefe  are  no  evi- 
c.ence«:»  v/hnt  rnay  be  done  towards  the  removal  of  corrupt  in- 
vjanations.  Nor  indeed  can  nature's  light  fatisfy  us  tliat  it  is 
praclicable.  Can  it  (Ikw  us  the  man  that  has  done  it?  This  were 
iomewhat  to  the  purpofe,  could  he  be  named.  But  this  cannot  be, 
\Vili  it  tell  us  t!5at  we  have  a  power  to  do  it  ?  But  this  is  ibmcwhat 
that  wc  fee  and  find  by  experience,  the  Oronged  and  mofl  con* 
vincing  of  all  arguments,  not  to  be  true.  We  find  vi'e  may 
rellrain  or  forbear  fome  outu^ard  a^lions,  but  we  have  no  expe« 
rien:e   of  a  power  to  lay  afide  or  diveft  ourfelves  of  inclinations 

io 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       253 

fo  deeply   rooted.     Befides,    they,    who   talk   of  this   power^ 
whereof  others   have  no  experience,  are  liabie  to  be  quenioned 
upon   feveral  things  which  ihey  canriot    fairly    or   fatiGfyingiy 
anfweri      Why    do    net    they  more   than  others  who    find    it 
not,  but  complain  of  the  want  of  this  power,    fhevv  that  thofe 
inclinations  are    eradicated  which   they  ov/n  (hould  be  laid  a- 
fide,  which   they    affert    they  have  a  power  to  lay   afide,  and 
which  they  fay  they  have  been  long  trying  to  overcome  ?   The 
world   will  be  forward  to  judge,  at  leaR,  the  thinking    part   of 
mankind    will  be    fo,  that  they  are   rather  mified  by  fome  fond 
fpeculalions  to   judge   they  have  a  power  that  they  really  want, 
than   that  this   practical  proof  fhould   fail,  which  feems   fcarce 
capable  of  an  anfv/er. 

Now  will  men  be  effe6lually  engaged  in  a  work  fo  difficult, 
which  they  are  never  like  to  bring  toanilTue?  Will  they 
not  rather  choofe  to  yield  to  the  conqueror  than  engage  in  a 
war  that  muft  laft  r/hile  they  laft,  and  that  without  profpc£t  of 
conqueft  and  being  mafters  in  the  end?  Yea,  have  they  not  done 
fo?  Who  v/ill  be  induced  to  fuch  an  undertaking  without 
encouragement? 

3.  If  this  is  practicable,  vet  it  mud  be  owned  extremely  dif- 
ficult, and  what  men  will  not  eafily  be  engaged  in.  Inclinations? 
are  deeply  rooted,  ftrengthened  by  cuftcm,  and  in  mod  height- 
ened by  tcmpt:^iions,  whereof  the  world  is  full.  Now  if 
natural  religion  is  fuppofed  able  to  perfuade  to  fuch  an  under- 
taking, it  muft  be  well  furniflied  with  ftrcng  motives  and  in- 
ducements. Whence  (hall  thofe  be  fetched  ?  Fronr:  the  rewards 
of  virtue,  and  the  punilhnient  of  vice  on  the  other  fide  time? 
We  heard  how  (hort  the  accounts  of  nature's  light  of  the.fe  are. 
The  impreffions  of  thefe  were  always  more  deeply  rooted  in 
the  vulgar,  than  the  philofophers;  yet  they  had  no  fuch  effect. 
It  is  plain,  outward  encouragements  do  not  attend  the  practice 
of  virtue.  There  remains  only  then  the  beauty  of  virtue  itfelf. 
Of  this  the  philofophers  have  talked  wonderful  things.  But 
the  mifchief  of  it  is,  it  was  but  talk.  When  they  miiTed  other 
things,  they  could,  even  with  iheirdying  breath,  as  Brutus,  one  of 
the  adcpti*,  is  faid  to  have  done,  call  virtue  but  an  empty  name. 
They  lived  otherv/ife  than  they  talked,  the  beft  of  them  not 
excepted.     It  is  excellently  faid  by  the  ingenious  Claudian, 

Ip/2 

*  «  Ferfea.'* 


^5^  AN   INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE         chap,  xr 

Ipfa  quidem  t-irtus  pretium  Jihi  folaqne  lat€ 
Fortiin^e  fecura  nitei,  nee  fafcikus  ullis 
Erigiturt  plaufwve  petit  dare/cere  <vulpi. 
Nil  opis  externi  cupicnii  -nil  indigna  laudis, 
Di-uitiis  animofa  Juisy  immotanue  cundis 
CaJibuSi  ex  alta  mortalia  dejpicit  arce  *. 

This  is  indeed  very  prettily  faid  ;  but  this  Is  all.  Mcrl  may 
pleafe  thcmfelves  with  refined  fpeculations  of  the  excellency  of 
virtue  :  but  it  is  not  this  alone  that  can  fway  corrupt  man.  It  is 
not  the  queftion,  what  virtue  really  is?  but  what  men  think  of 
it,  and  can  be  made  to  fee  in  it?  And  it  is  certain,  all  the 
philofophers  could  never  perfuade  the  world  of  it ;  and  no 
wonder,  for  they  could  not  perfuade  themfelves.  Man- 
kind have  had  other  thoughts,  and  it  mull  be  other  views  than 
nature  can  give,  that  will  beat  them  out  of  this.  Another  poet 
pliinly  opens  the  cafe, 

T^urpe  quidem  dijiu  (fed  Ji  modo  'vera  fatemur) 

Vulgm  amicitias  utilitate  prohai : 

Ciira  quid  expcdiat  prior  ejiy  quam  quid  Jtt  honejium^ 

Et  cum  fortuna  Jiatque  caditque  fides. 

Nee  facile  in'veuies  multis  in  millibus  ununiy 

Fir  tut  em  pretium  qui  put  at  effe  Jui, 

Ipfe  decor  rediy  fadi  ft  prcemia  definty 

Ng?i  ?nc^vet,  ^  gratis  penitet  effe  probum  \, 

Here  is  the  true  ftate  of  the  cafe.  But  to  come  clofely  up  to 
the  point ;  this  beauty  of  virtue  is  not  difcernible  till  we  have 
made  fome  progrefs  in  it.  While  corrupt  inclinations  are  in 
their   vigour  in  the  heart,    fuch  a    beauty    is  not   eafily  feen. 

2.    It 

*  De  Confuhtu  Mallii  Theodoriab  Initio.—"  Virtue  indeed  is  its 
"  own  reward,  and  it  alone  ihines  far  and  wide,  regardlefs  of  for- 
"  tune^  nor  is  it  elevated  by  any  power,  or  dcfires  to  become  fa- 
**  mous  by  the  applaufe  of  the  croud,  having  no  defire  of  outward 
**  help,  nor  any  need  of  praife.  Bold  in  its  own.  riches,  and  immove- 
**  able  by  all  accidents,  it  looks  down  on  mortal  things  from  a  high 
**  eminence.*' 

+  Ovid,  de  Panto,  Lib-  2.  Eleg.  3. — "  It  is  indeed  fcandalous  to 
«<  relate,  but  if  we  will  only  confcfs  the  truth,  the  multitude  approves  of 
»«  friendfhip  only  for  interefl;  the  cafe  of  what  is  profitable  is  prior  to 
*<  the  cafe  of  what  is  honourable,  and  tlieir  fidelity  ftands  and  falls  with 
**  fortune ;  nor  wiil  you  eaiily  find  one  among  many  ihoufands,  who 
"  thinks  that  virtue  is  its  own  reward.  "Ihe  beauty  of  virtue  by  itfelf 
♦«  does  not  move  them,  if  rewards  are  wanting?  and  they  grudge 
»<  to  be  honeft  for  nothing." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODBHN  DEISTS.       257 

2.  It  is  a  beauty  too  line  to  be  perceived  by  vulgar  eyes,  01' 
indeed  by  any,  rvitbcut  deeper  and  nicer  ccnfideraiion,  than 
itigI^  of  men  can  go  to  (he  charge  of.  3.  Alone  it  is  not  luih- 
clent  to  fuppcrt  and  carry  on  in  fo  hazardous  an  undertaking. 
4.  This  advantage  is  not  to  be  felt  till  the  virtue  be  obtained. 
It  is  a  queftion  whether  it  will  be  attained.  So  that  it  is  plain, 
natural  rehVion  wants  motives  to  engage  elfe«Siuaily  to  this. 

4.  It  is  ftili  further  confiderable  to  this  purpcle,  that  ihefe 
vitlo'js  inclinations  arc  ftrong,  if  not  ftrongeft,  in  thoie  v/ho 
have  neither  capacity  to  dive  into  fhofe  few  refined  confidera^ 
tions,  which  enforce  the  praiiice  of  virtue,  and  the  fubduing 
of  corruption,  nor  indeed  to  undcrfiand  them  v/hen  propofcd, 
nor  have  they  time  or  Iclfure  to  attend  to  the  diicourfes  of  tl.'C 
philofophers  when  they  are  taught,  or  money  to  purchafe  them. 
And  natural  religion  provides  no  teachers,  at  leaf)  if  we  take  it 
according  to  the  accounts  that  we  get  from  the  deifls,  who  bear 
fuch  a  terrible  grudge  to  ?l  Jlanding  ?nini/lry,  and  have  fo  oft 
in  their  mouths  that  refie6tion  of  Dryden,  *'  Prief^sofsll  re- 
ligions are  the  famiC."  Now  what  a  fad  cafe  are  poor  men  in, 
who  are  folicited  by  outward  temptatiof?s  and  pufhed  on  by 
Orong  inclinations,  and  have  fo  fmall  afiinance  given  them  by 
natural  religion. 

5.  As  motives  are  wanting,  fo  tlie  work  is  not  eaPdy  carried 
on,  the  'vvay  of  management  is  difficult,  and  th«^  dive6lions  giv- 
en us  bv  the  philofophers  or  others,  are  exceedingly  unfatisfac- 
tory.  Some  of  thern  are  impofTible,  fuch  as  the  entire  laying 
afide  of  our  affections  ;  others  of  them  ridiculous,  fuch  as  ihat 
direction  above-mention.ed  out  of  Plato,  for  the  purihca?ion  oi 
our  fouls  by  mulic  and  mathematics,  &c.  Others,  and  in.:'ced 
mod  of  them,  only  tell  us  what  we  are  to  do,  bid  us  do  the 
thing,  but  tell  us  not  hew  to  fet  about  it  ;  Tome  of  them  only 
tell  us  how  to  conceal  inward  corruption,  or  divert  it.  /^nd, 
perhaps,  I  ilicuid  net  f:iy  amifs,  if  1  fnouid  fay,  that  what  the 
beu  moral  philofophers  either  aimed  at  or  attained,  was  oniy 
to  dam  in  corruption  on  one  fide,  to  let  it  run  ouv  at  anctbrr; 
or  to  make  that  run  in  a  fecret  channel,  v.'hich  lun  open  »■""- 
fore.  It  were  long  to  examine  their  feveral  directions.  1  l^e 
learned  Herbert  gives  us  a  fummary  of  them,  which  I  fltal!  here 
prefent  the  reader  v.'i'^b.  i.  We  jliould  fupprefs  all  our  viticv.s 
afj'tdions*  This  is  but  to  advife  the  thing,  without  telli?)g  us 
how  it  is  to  be  done.  2.  That  zvt  expiate  our  jins  by  dtep  re- 
pentancef  and  by  the  iiiftituted  facripces  or  rites*     This  is  oniy 

1  i  a  re- 


2:3  AN    INd^IRr   INTO   THE  chap.  xi. 

a  rtfnctiy  for  guilt,  and  an  ill  one  too,  as  has  been  cleared  a- 
br.»'e.     3.   That  we  avcid  the  Jociety  of  evil  men*     But  then  we, 
mull  go  out  of  the  ivorld^  or  at  leaft  out  of  the  heathen  world. 
.\'   Th.U  ue  ufe  the  company  of  good  men.     But  where  (hall  we 
fjnd  tlieir  amongft  thofe,  who  have  no  rriore  but  natural   reli- 
gion ?    5.   That  ice   inquire  carefully  what    is  to  be  done^  and 
what  is  rot  to  be  dene;  but  the  quefhon   is,  when  we  know  it, 
How  lliall  we  get  the  one  avoided  and   the  other  followed, con- 
fidcring  we  have  a  ftrong   averficn  to   good,  and    inclination  to 
e-it?     6.    'Ihat  our  Jins,    zvhich    arife  from  human   frailty t 
fiiould  he  coirsBed  or  laid  o fide.     But  ftili  the  quellion  occurs, 
How  is  this  to  be  done?     7.   That  zee  fJiould  ufe  fupplications 
ahd  prayers  to  the  gods ^   as  the  priefls  prefcribe.     But  for  M'hat, 
and  upon  what  grounds?  And  what  will  this  help  the  matter? 
6     To   conclude   this  argument,   the   univerfai  experience  oi 
rrtankind  bears   teftimcny  to  the  weaknefs  of  natural  religion. 
Nothing   in    this  matter  was  ever   done,    or  done   to  purpofe,' 
i":v  e    where   revelation    prevailed.      Should    we   narrowly  lean 
the   livcL-,   not  of  the  vulgar,  but    of  the   Heathen  philofophers, 
^s    Plato,    Arifiotle,  Seneca,    Plutarch,  Cato    and    Brutus,  we 
might  eafily   pull  ofthenriafk,  and   dilccver  how  little    it   was 
t'jar  lliey  attained  in  this  matter,  or  rather  nothing'  st  all.    Yea 
even  a  Sccrates  him.fclf  would  not  be  able  to  (land  before  an  im- 
pa:;i.il   inquirer.      1  believe   he  could    not  give  a  good  account 
of  his  amours,   and   thofe    practical    inflru6iions,  which    he   is 
f;\id  TO  have    given    his  fchclar   Alcibiades.      He    repreiTed  well 
the  vanity  and  pride  of  other  piiilofophers:  but  pcihaps,  nay  I 
Yi^.<in\  rot  fay  perh?,ps,  with  greater  pride;   yea  even  his  death, 
th.-;  iRcit  applauded  part  of  his  whole   conduti,    might    be  un- 
inalk^^d,  and  dt-privcd   cf  the  unjufl  eulogies,  which  fome  have 
made  on  it,  who,  it  may  be,  never  read  the  accounts   we  have 
of  it,  or  ferioufly  ccnl'ideied  his  carriage  on   that  occafion.     It 
is  triic,  he  was  unjuOly  put   to   death,  and    behaved  very  refo- 
iutelv,  but  whether  he  fell  not  a  facrifice  to  his  own  pride,   as 
much  as  to  the  malice  cf  his  enemies,  may  be  qucilioned.    This 
I   fav  not    to   detract  from  thofe    great   men,  whom   I  admire, 
conlidering  their  Tiatc  ;   but  to  inew,  that  they  went  not  fo  high 
as  fcnic  would  have  us  believe. 

In  tine,  till  revealed  religion  appeared,  nothing  was  {ctn 
in  the  world,  of  true  piety  or  religion,  of  mortihcation  of  fm, 
or  holinefs  of  life.  The  natural  notices  could  never  make 
one  pious,  or  indeed  moral.  Whereas  Chriilianity,  upon  its  firii 


4 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  iMODERN  DEIST: 


259 


appearance,  in  a  moment,  as  it  v/ere,  made  millions  (o.  And 
they  who  have  rejefled  it,  an:T  fet  up  for  Fleatheni;':!  again, 
under  the  new,  but  injurious  name  of  Deifm,  are  no  friends  to 
holinefs  of  life,  piety  towards  God,  fobriety  in  their  own  wav, 
nor  righteoufneis  among  m^n.  How  mighty  faints  da  Biourit, 
Hobbs,  Spinoza,  Uriel,    Accoila   and  others  make? 

I  defigned  to  have  pioceeded  further,  to  demonHratc  the 
infufficiency  of  naturai  religion  to  anfwer  the  ends  of  religion, 
by  the  connderation  of  its  infufficiency  to  fnpport  under  the 
troubles  of  life^  or  amongft  the  terrors  of  death;  but  upon  fe- 
cond  thoughts  I  judged,  after  what  has  been  faid,  it  was  not 
needful.  Befides,  if  any  look  but  at  it,  they  may  eafiiy  fee 
it  L'.tterly  infufficient  to  this  purpofe,  as  it  is  indeed  t.o  the 
ether  great  ends  of  religion. 

If  the  well-founded  profpe6l  of  future  rewards,  an^l  a  cle^r 
knowledge  of  the  nature  and  excellency  oi  thivgs  eternal  and 
not feen,  the  prefent  intimations  of  divine  love,  in  crofs  difpen- 
fations,  the  fupports  of  divine  powerful  grace  under  them,  the 
iifefulnefs  of  thofe  calamities,  by  virtue  of  divine  ordination 
Py  and  concurrent  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  verified  in  the: 
^  experience  of  the  fufFerers,  are  laid  afide,  as  natural  religion 
does,  which  knows  nothing  of  thefe,  all  that  men  can  fay  to 
comfort  under  afflidion,  or  arm  againfi;  the  horrors  of  doath,  19 
but  an  unprofitable  amufement,  or  at  leaft,  like  rattles  and 
other  toys  we  give  to  children,  that  do  not  in  the  le.^li  cafe 
them  of  the  pain  they  are  under;  but  do  for  a  little,  divert 
the  mind,  while  they  are  looked  at  ;  but  as  foon  as  thp  firfi 
impreiTion  is  over,  which  thefe  new  toys  make  on  the  mind, 
the  fenfe  of  pain  recurs  again,  with  that  redoubled  force, 
which  it  always  has,  when  it  immediately  fuccee<i^  either  tai"<? 
or  want  of  fenfe.  And  if  it  is  really  violent,  thefe  things 
will  not  avail,  no  not  to  divert  trouble  for  a  little.  It  is  but  a 
forry  comfort  to  tell  me,  that  others  are  troubled  as  well  as 
I,  or  warfc  ;  that  death,  which  I  fear,  will  cn^  it  ;  thitt  I 
mufl  bear  it ;  that  I  have  other  enjoyments,  which  yet  prefent 
pain  will  not  allow  me  to  rclilh.  Yet  fuch  are  thq  bjft  cor]- 
folations    that  natural  rdinon  affords. 


CHAP. 


26o  AN     IXQ^UIRY     INTO     THE     chax-.  xii. 

C     H     A     P.      XII. 

IVherrAn  the  Proof  of  the  Infujjlciency  of ^  Katura!  Religion  is 
^concluded  from   a  general    Viezu   of  the   Exptritnce  of   the 
World. 

AS  a  conclunon  to,  and  illuRration  of  what  has  hitherto  been 
dircourfed,  for  dcmonftrating  the  infufficiencyoi  natural 
religon,  I  ffiall  here  olfer  2i  fix-fold  view  of  the  experience  of  the 
world  in  general,  wiihodt  dei'cending  to  particular  iniiances, 
u'hich  have  in  part  been  touched  at,  and  ottered  before^  and 
are  every  where  to  be  inet  with. 

I.  Let  us  view  man  as  a  creature  made  for  this  end,  to  gfor?/y 
Cod  and  enjoy  /:  J. ■??.,  abfi  ranting  frcjn  the  confideration  of  bis  cor- 
ruption, winch  ihe  deiPis  fonnetimes  dcvry,  and  fometinies  wit!i^ 
diihcuity,  do  but  in  part  admit.  And  Jet  us  confidcr  him  as  left  to 
purfue  this  noble  cn6,  in  the  Life  of  his  rational  faculties,  unc'cr 
the  conduci  of  the  mere  light  of  nature  :  If  we  confider  hi.n  thu:^> 
and  inqu're  into  the  experience  of  the  world,  how  far  he  has 
rciched  this  end,  we  thall  hnd  fuch  an  account,  as  will  mpch 
co-inrm  the  truth  we  have  hitherto aiTerted,  and  weaken  the  credit 
of  the  dehls'  imaginary  fufficiency  of  nature's  light  to  cohdud 
an  to  the  end  for  which  he  was  made, 

I'i  we  look  to  the  generality  of  m.ankind,  \vq  rnall  find  them,  in 
a  porlure  much  like  that  wherein  the  prophet  faw  the  princes  in 
the  vifion,  with  their  backs  to  the  chief  end,  never  once  think- 
ing for  what  they  were  made,  parfuing  other  things  ;  every  one 
as'iud  led  him,  foliowing  his  own  humour,  walking  in  a  diredl 
and  open  contradiction  to  that  law,  which  was  originally  dehgn- 
ed  fur  the  guide  cf  our  life,  and  the  dire6iory  to  bliis,  that  hap- 
pinefs,  which  all  would  have,  though  they  know  Lot  where  to 
find  it. 

If  we  look  at  the  philofjphcrs,  we  may  fee  xhcxn  fitting  up 
late,  rifing  earlv,  ealing  thebre-zdofcarefulnefis,  wearying  ihem- 
felves  in  the  fearch  of  happinefs.,  running  into  hundreds  of  ditFe- 
rent  notions  about  it,  and  yet  not  one  of  them  hitting,  or  at  leaft 
imderRanding  the  true  one  ;  and  as  little  agreed  about  the  way 
to  it.  We  may  hear  them  talk  of  virtue,  but  never  levelling  it  at 
its  proper  end,  the  glory  of  God,  We  may  hear  them  urging  its 
practice,  but  not  upon  the  proper  grounds.  Rarely  any  regard  to 
the  authority  of  God,  the  only  formal  ground  of  obedience.    In- 

fiead 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        261 

Oead  of  plain  rules  ufeful  to  mankind,  they  obtrude  cryptic  and 
dark  ientences,  rather  defigned  to  make  others  admire  them,  than 
to  be  ufeful  to  any.  They  every  where  tack  their  own  fancies 
to  the  divine  law,  a  weight  iuiiicient  to  link  it  as  to  its  truth,  in 
the  apprehenfions  of  men,  oratleaft,  as  to  its  ufefulnefs.  They 
offer  a  rule  defeclivc  in  m.ofl  thinj^s  of  m.oment,  corrupt  in  many, 
ruining  in  not  a  few  inRances,  deltitute  of  any  other  authority 
than  their  own  fay,  or  ipjc  dixit ^  unintelligible  to  the  generality, 
and  naked  as  to  inducements  to  obey  it. 

2.  Let  us  confider  man  as  made  for  this  end, but  barred  from  its 
attainment,  by  the  interpofition  of  thofe  great  hindcrances  and 
rubs  which  now  are  certainly  in  its  way  ;  I  mean  darknefs, 
guilt  and  corruption.  Thefe  arc  ftones  in  the  way.  How  has 
nature's  light  acquitted  itfelf  as  to  the  rolling  them  away  ?  Truly 
they  have  been  like  Syfiphus's  ftone,  as  faft  as  they  have  rolled 
them  up,  23  fait  they  have  recoiled  and  fallen  back  on  them. 

As  to  that  darknefs  that  has  overfpread  the  minds  of  men,  if 
we  look  at  the  gcneralty,  we  find  them  like  blind  men,  con- 
tent to  jog  on  in  the  dark,  mired  every  where,  fiumbiing 
frequently,  and  falling  fometimes  dangeroufly;  yet  fatisficd 
wth  their  cafe,  not  looking  after  light:  not  fo  much  becaufe  they 
want  it  not,  as  becaufe  they  have  no  notion  of  it,  or  its  ufeful- 
nefs ;  like  blind  men  that  never  {aw  the  fun,  and  therefore 
fufFer  the  lofs  of  it  with  lefs  regret,  than  they  who  once  faw, 
but  now  have  loft  their  eyes.  They  follow  as  they  arc  led  ;  are 
ready  to  take  hold  of  any  hand,  though  of  one  as  blind  ^s 
themfelves,  and  are  never  fenfible  of  the  miftake,  till  funk 
where  they  cannot  get  out  again.  The  philofophers  indeed 
feem  a  little  more  fentlbie  of  their  czi'c,  and  fancying  truth  to 
be  hid  in  Dem.ocritus's  well,  dive  for  it,  but  lofe  their  breath 
before  they  come  at  it,  and  fall  into  dangerous  eddies  or  whirl- 
pools, where  they  lofe  themfelves  inilead  of  finding  truth  ;  or 
trying  to  fetch  it  up,  but  with  a  line  too  fnort,  they  fetch  up 
feme  we.^<is  that  are  nourifhed  by  their  nearnefs  to  the  waters, 
and  pleafe  tl.emfelves  with  thofe.  After  all  their  painful  en- 
deavours we  firvj  them  groping  in  the  dark,  as  to  all  ufeful: 
and  neceflary  knav.'ledge  of  God,  or  the  way  of  worfiiipping 
him;  of  ourfelves,  our  happlnefs,  our  fins,  the  way  of  obtain- 
ing pardon,  our  duty  or  our  corruption. 

As  to  guilt,  if  we  lo{>k  at  the  cafe  of  mankind,  and  their 
endeavours  for  the  removal  of  ir^  we  find  the  mofi  part  drov,  n- 
^d   in  endlefs  defpair  or  fatal  fecurity  ;   like  m.en  at  their  wit's 

end, 


'jiSi  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE         chap.  xii. 

env^,  trying  all  v/ays  that  fear,  fuperflition,  or  racked  imaglna^ 
tion  can  fLipnlyj  and  Oili  unfatisfied  with  their  own  inventions, 
they  are  ready  to  try  ail  ways  that  lelf-defigning  men,  or  even 
Ihe  d«?vil  can  fuggeil  to  them,  fparing  no  cod,  no  travel,  no 
pain.  They  Hand  not  to  give  the  fruit  of  their  body  for  the 
Jin  of  their  JouL  The  philofophers  either  think,  through  their 
pride,  they  have  no  fin,  becaufe  they  are  not  quire  {o  bad  as 
the  vulgar  ;  or,  if  they  ftill  retain  fome  fenfe  of  fin,  they  are 
driven  into  the  ntmofi;  perplexity,  being  convinced  of  the 
wickednefsof  the  meafures  taken  by  the  vulgar,  or  at  lead  of 
their  ufelelVnefs  and  impertinency,  and  yet  unable  to  find  out 
better  ;  they  try  to  divert  their  thoughts  from  a  fore  they  know 
Ro  plainer  for. 

As  to  corruption,  we  find  all  confefling  it,  crying  out  of 
thedifeafe;  and  indeed  it  is  rather  becaufe  it  cannot  be  hid, 
the  fore  runs,  than  becaufe  it  is  painful  to  many.  The  gene- 
rality defpair  of  ftemming  the  tide,  and  finding  it  eaficft  to  fwim 
with  the  ftreara,  are  willingly  carried  headlong.  The  body 
of  philofophers  are  indeed  like  weak  w^ter-men  on  a  Orong 
flream,  they  look  one  way  but  are  carried  another.  Though 
they  pretend  they  aim  at  the  ruining  of  vice,  yet  really  they 
do  it  no  hurt,  fave  that  they  fpeak  againfl  it.  A  izw  of  the 
bed  of  them  being  aPr.amed  to  be  found  amongfl  the  red,  fwim- 
ming,  or  rather  carried  down  the  dream  on  the  lurface,  that  is, 
in  open  vice,  have  dived  to  the  bottom;  b-ut  really  made  as 
much  way  under  water  as  the  others  above. 

3.  Let  us  view  mankind  under  the  goodncfs  and  forbearance 
of  God,  thefe  helps  which  fome  think  fufficient,  Thefe  words 
arc  ufed,  or  rather  abufed,  as  a  blind  in  a  matter  of  very  great 
importance  ;  and  men  who  ufe  them  will  fcarce  tell,  if  they 
can,  even  in  the  fubjc6l  of  the  prefent  difcourfe,  in  what  {^^{q 
tbey  ufe  them.  But  let  it  be  as  it  will,  feme  pretend  the 
works  of  providence,  particularly  God's  goodncfs  aird  for- 
bearance fufi-icient.  Well,  let  us  lee  the  expericjice  of  the 
world  in  this. 

If  we  view  mankind  under  this  confideraticn,  wc  may  fee 
them  fo  far  from  being  led  to  repentance,  that  mod  part  never 
once  took  notice  of  this  condu6l  of  God.  Other?,  and  they 
not  a  few,  have  abufed  it  to  the  word  purpofes.  Becaufe  judg- 
7iient  agoinfi  an  evil  worky  has  not  boen  fpeedvy  executed,  there- 
fore their  hearts  were  wholly  fet  in  them  to  do  eviL  The  more 
inquifitive    have  raifed   a   clvrge   agaiud  God   as  encouraging 

wickcdnels. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       26 


Vvickednefs.  And  as  for  the  favours  ihey  enjoyed  themrelvcs, 
they  looked  on  them,  not  as  calls  to  repentance,  but  as  re- 
wards for  their  pretended  virtues,  and  fcanty  ones  too,  below 
the  worth  of  thern.  Not  a  fev/  of  them  have  gone  near  to  ar- 
raign God  of  injuftice  for  lefier  afflictions  they  uere  vifued 
vi^ith  ;  while  others  have  been  entangled  and  toiled  to  and 
fro  by  crofs  appearances.  So  that  none  have  by  this  goodnefs 
of  Goilf  been  led  to  repentance. 

4,  Let  us  view  man  living  in  the  place  where  revelation  ob- 
tains, or  where  the  Chriftian  religion  is  profefled  and  taught,  but 
renouncing  and  rejedting  it,  and  in  profeflion  owning  only  na- 
tural religion  :  Such  are  the  deifts  atiiong  us.  if  we  confrer 
their  words,  they  talk  indeed  that  natural  religion  is  fuflicient  ; 
and  to  make  it  indeed  appear  fo,  fome  of  them  have  adorned  \i 
with  jewels  borrowed  from  the  temple  of  God,  afcribing  to  na- 
ture's lightdifcoveries  in  religion,which  originally  were  owing  to 
revelation,  and  were  never  dreamed  of  v.  here  it  did  not  obtain  ; 
though  being  once  difcovered,  they  have  gained  the  confent  of 
fober  reafon.  But  now  we  are  net  ccnfidering  the  fpcech,  but 
the  power  of  thefe  men  ;  not  v/hat  they  fay  of  the  fufficiency  of 
natural  religion,  but  what  real  experience  they  have  of  it,  and 
what  evidence  they  give  of  this  in  their  pradiice. 

if  we  thus  conuder  them,  we  find,  that  although  when  thev 
have  a  mind  to  impofe  their  notion  of  the  fufnciency  of  natural 
religion  upon  others,  they  pretend,  that  it  is  clear,  as  to  a  great 
many  points  or  principles,  that  are  coniciledlv  of  the  greateO: 
mouieni  in  religion  ;  yet  when  they  begin  to  fpeak  more  plainly 
and  freely  their  own  inward  fentimiCnls,  they  (hew  that  thfv 
are  not  iixed,  no  not  about  the  very  principles  themfelves,  cvta 
thefe  of  them  which  are  of  the  greateft  confequence.  Mr.  Gil- 
don,  publilher  of  the  Oracles  of  Reafon,  is  not  far  from  alTerting; 
two  anti-^'Tods,  the  one  gocdi  the  other  evil ;  and  fo  falls  in 
with  the  Perfians  *.  Blouat  favours  the  opinion  of  Ocellus  Lu- 
canus,  about  the  zoorld's  eternity,  and  confequently  denies,  or 
at  leaR  hefitates  about  creation-^.  The  immateriaiity  of  the  foul 
teems  to  be  flatly  reje6ied  by  them  all.  Nor  do  they  \t^m 
very  firm  as  to  its  immortality.  In  fhort,  after  they  have 
been  at  fo  much  pains  to  trim  v.y)  natural  religion,  and 
make  it  look  fufficient-like,  they  yet  exprefs  a  hcfitation  about 
lis  fufficiency  to  eternal  Ife^.     We  have  heard  Herbert  to  this 

purpoie 

*  Oracles  of  Reafon,  pag.  194,   213,-22:^.  f  Ibid,    154,    iq/. 

t  ibid,  1 17,   127. 


264  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE       chap.  xii. 

purpofe  already.  Blount,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  S^'denliam,  pre- 
fixed to  the  Deifies  Rcafons,  fays  plainly,  that  it  is  not  iafe  to 
truft  deifm  alone,  without  Chriiiiariity  joined  to  it.  And  the 
Deift's  hope  is  fummed  up  in  this,  in  the  4th  chap,  of  (he  Sum- 
mary  oj  tlu  Deijl's  Ilea  fens.  That  **  there  is  more  probability 
of  his  ialvation,  than  of  the  creduious  and  ili-living  Papill*;" — 
and  that  is  juil  none  at  all. 

Nor  does  their  pratlice  give  one  jot  of  a  better  proof  of  the 
fufficiency  of  that  religion  which  they  profefs :  yea,  it  r.ffbrds 
convincing  evidence  of  its  weaknefs,  ufeleiTnefs,  and  utter  in- 
fufficiency.  Their  lives  fhew  that  they  arc  not  in  earneR  about 
any  thing  in  religion.  Tliey  arc  Latitudinarians  in  pra(Slice. 
Their  words,  their  actions,  have  no  favour  of  a  regard  to  a 
Deity  ;  but  they  go  on  in  all  manner  of  impieties  in  pra*.5^ice, 
and  perhaps  in  the  end,  put  a  period  to  a  wretched  life  by  their 
own  hands,  as  Blount,  Uriel,  Acci'la  and  others  have  done,  and 
the  furvivers  juftifythe  dced,upontriilingand  child ifii  reafonings; 
as  not  knowing  but  they  may  one  day  be  put  to  ufe  the  fairiC 
fnift.  1  am  not  in  the  leafi  deterred  from  averting  this,  by  the 
commendations  that  the  pubiifiierof  the  Grades  of  Reajon  gives 
to  Mr.  Blount,  as  a  perfon  remarkable  for  virtue  *.  If  a  pro- 
fane, jocular,  and  unbecoming  treatment  of  the  gravcfl  and 
moft  iirportant  truths  that  belong,  even  by  his  own  acknow- 
ledgment, to.  natural  religion  ,*  yea,  and  are  the  principal 
props  of  it  ;  and  if  grofs  and  palpable  difmgenuiiy  be  inHances 
of  that  virtue  that  he  afcribes  to  him,  and  evidences  of  thofe 
ju/l  and  adequate  notions  of  the  Daty,  in  which  he  fays  Mr, 
illount  was  bred  up,  I  could  gives  inflances  enougii  from  the 
book  itfelf  of  fuch  virtues  :  But  I  love  net  to  rake  in  the  ajhes  of 
the  dead*  Again,  others  of  the  Deifts,  having  wearied  then>- 
feives  in  chace  of  a  phantom  to  no  purpofe,  and  having  neitiicr 
the  grace  nor  ingenuity  to  return  to  the  religion  tirjy  aban- 
doned, either  land  in  downright  atheifm  in  principle  and  prac- 
tice, or  they  throw  themfelves  into  the  arms  of  the  pretended 
infallible  guide  ;  and  thereny  orjve  evidence  how  well-founded 
the  Jefuitical  maxim  is,  Make  a  man  once  an  atliajl,  he  wiU 
foon  turn  Papift. 

5.   Let  us  view  men    living    under   the  ffofpej,  embracing  it 
in  profeflion,  but  unacquainted   with   that  Spirit   that    gives  life 
and  pozoer  to  its  dodhines,  precepts,  pi-omifcs,  threats  and   or- 
dinances. 

*  Oracles  of  PvCafon,  at  the  beginning,  accouiit  of  Blount's  life. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        25.5 

dinances.  They,  befides  that  they  are  pcffcired  of  all  the  ad- 
vantages of  nature's  light,  have  moreover  the  luperadded  ad- 
vantages of  revelation,  and  its  inftitutions.  They  have  minif- 
teis  and  parents  inftru6ling  them,  and  difcipline  to  reftrain 
them,  they  are  trained  up  in  the  faith  of  future  rewards,  and 
inftru£ted  in  the  nature  and  excellency  of  them,  for  their  en- 
couragement ;  they  have  punilhments  propofed  to  them  to  deter 
them  from  fm,  which  they  profsfs  to  believe;  yet  if  we  con- 
fider  the  pratlice  cf  the  generality  of  fuch  perfons,  if  gives 
a  fufficient  evidence,  tlmt  all  this  is  not  enough.  Who  but  a 
man  blind  or  foolilh  can  then  dote  fo  far,  as  to  pretend  nature's 
light  alone  fufficient,  when  it  is  not  fo,  even  when  helped  by 
fo  many  acceiTory  improvements  ? 

If  we  conftder  the  experience  of  them  who  have  recei^'ed  tlie 
gofpel  in  truth,  and  felt  its  power,  we  find  they  have  indeed 
reached  the  ends  of  religion  in  part,  and  have  a  fair  profpect 
as  to  farther  iuccefs.  Well,  what  is  their  fenfe  of  the  fuffici- 
ency  of  nature's  light  ?  Why,  if  you  obferve  them  in  their  pub- 
lic devotions,  you  Ihall  hear  heavy  out-cries  of  their  own  daik- 
nefs,  weaknefs  and  wickednefs  ;  you  may  hear  ferlous  prayers 
for  divine  light,  and  life  to  quicken  th?m,  flrengthen  and  in- 
cline them  to  follow  duty,  and  fupport  tliem  in  it,  againft  the 
pov/er  of  temptations,  whi^h  they  own  themfeUes  unable  to 
marier,  without  the  pov/erful  aids  of  divine  grace.  If  you  fal- 
low them  into  their  retirements,  where  the  matter  is  rnanaged 
betwixt  God  and  them  alone,  where  they  are  under  none  of 
thefe  temptations,  to  maintain  the  credit  of  any  received  no- 
tions, and  therefore  mu(\  be  prefumed  to  fpeak  out  the  practical 
fenfe  of  the  ftate  of  their  cafe,  without  any  difguife  ;  there 
you  fliall  find  nothing  but  deep  confeffions  of  guilt,  darknefs, 
and  inability,  with  earnefi:  cries,  prayers,  and  tears,  for  {u:^- 
plies  of  grace  :  and  what  they  attain  in  matte?s  of  religion, 
you  (liall  find  them  freely  owning,  that  it* was  not  tLy,  but 
the  grace  of  God  in  thsm  that  brought  them  to  this.  And  ih^ 
more  that  any  is  concerned  about  religion,  or  know  and  has 
attained  in  it,  fiill  you  will  find  him  the  more  feniible  of  ibis 
ftate  of  things. 

This  is  but  a  hint  of  what  might  have  been  faid  :  but  I  have 
rather  chofen  to  ofl^er  a  general  Icheme  of  the  argument  ficm 
experience,  which  every  one,  from  his  own  private  reading  and 
obfervation,  may  illuftrate  with  obfervations  and  particular  in- 
flances,  than  to  infii't  upon  it  at  large,  which  would  have  re- 
quired a  volume. 

K  k  CHAP 


266  AN   INQUIRY    INTO  THE       ci«\p.  xm. 


CHAP.      XIII. 

IVherdn  tee  mah  a  iranfdion  to  the  Dcifts'  Pleas  for  their  Opt- 
raoHf  and  take  particular  Notice  oj  the  Articles  to  zuhichthey 
reduce  their  Catholic  Religicjiy  give  fomt  Account  of  Baron 
Herbert,  the  firft  Inventer  oJ  this  Catholic  Religion  Jus  Books, 
and  particularly  of  that  which  is  infcrihed  De  Religionc 
Gentilium,  as  to  the  Kiatter  and  Scope  of  it,  and  the  Impor- 
tance of  what  is  therein  attempted  to  the  Deijls'  Cavfe, 

WE  have  norv  propofed  and  confirmed  our  own  opinion  ;  our 
ntxt  bufincfs  is  to  inquire   more   particulariy  into   that 
of  the  Deills,  and  confider  what  they  otter  for  it. 

The  firll:  fet  of  Deills,  fo  far  as  I  can  learn,  did  fatlsfy  them- 
felves  with  the  reje^iion  of  ail  fupernatural  revelation,  and  a 
general  pretence,  that  natural  reiigicn  was  fufficient,  without 
telling  the  world  of  what  articles  it  did  confift,  what  belonged 
thereto,  or  how  far  it  went.  The  learned  lord  Herbert  was 
the  firft  who  did  cultivate  this  notion,  and  dreiTed  Deifm,  and 
brought  it  to  fomethingcf  a  form.  This  honour  he  aflumes  to 
himfelf,  glories  in  it,  and  we  fee  no  ground  to  difputeihis  with 
him.  1  have  met  with  nothing  in  any  of  the  modern  Deifts 
t'nat  makes  towards  this  fubje»:t,  which  is  not  advanced  by  him, 
;^nd  probably  borrowed  from  his  writings.  It  will  not  there- 
fore he  impertinent  to  give  the   reader  fome  account  of  him. 

Tiiis  Edrnard  lli-.rhert  was  a  defcerdant  from  a  younger  bro- 
ther of  the  family  of  Pembroke.  He  was  brother  to  the  fa- 
mous George  Herbert  the  divine  poet.  His  education  was  at 
Oxford,  where  he  was  for  fome  time  a  fellow  Commoner  in 
IJniveifitv-Coliege  there.  After  he  left  the  univerfity,  he  im- 
proved himf.  !f  by  travels  into  foreign  nations,  and  obtained  the 
reputation  of  a  icholar,  a  t^atefman  and  foldier.  He  was  made 
Knight  of  the  Bath  at  the  coronation  of  king  James  I.  in  Eng- 
land, wlio  afterwards  fent  hivn  as  ambalTador  to  Lewis  Xlli.  on 
behalf  of  the  French  Prcteftants :  and  upon  his  return  he  was 
created  Baron  of  Caflle-Ifand,  in  Ireland  ;  and  by  king  Char- 
les 1.  anno  i6op,  he  was  created  a  baron  of  England,  by  the 
tiile  of  Lord  Herbert  of  Cher  bury  ^  and  died  in  1648  *. 

This 

*  See  Geo^raph.  Diflion.  articles  Herbert  and  Dcifm,  See  alfo  the 
Life  of  Mr,  George  Herbert, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       267 

This  learned  perfon  having  once  unhappily  apoi^atifed  from 
the  reJigion  wherein  he  was  bred,  into  dajm,  though,  as  other 
Deiftsiikewile  do,  he  did  ftili  feem  to  own  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  yet  he  fct  himfclf  for  the  maintenance  of  deifm  in  his 
writings.  And  to  this  purpofe  he  publiihcd  fome  time  after 
the  year  1640,  (for  I  have  not  the  firft  edition  of  it)  his  book 
de  Veritate,  and  (hortly  after  another,  de  Caujis  Errorzun* 
Thefe  two  books  are  for  the  moft  part  phiiofophical,  and  writ- 
ten with  fome  Angularity  of  notion.  What  is  truth  in  them  is 
rather  delivered  in  a  nezu  ivayf  than  new  ;  and  by  the  ufe  of  vul^- 
gar  words  in  new  and  uncommon  acceptations,  and  hisobfcure 
way  of  management  of  his  notions,  is  fcarcely  intelligible  to 
any  but  metaphylical  readers,  nortofuch,  without  greater  ap- 
plication, than  perhaps  the  matter  is  worth.  I  fliould  not  think 
myfelf  concerned  in  either  of  thefe  two  books,  their  fubje6\  be- 
inij  phiiofophical,  were  it  not  that  it  is  his  avowed  defign  in 
them,  to  lay  a  foundation  for  his  peculiar  notions  in  religion. 

There  are  two  things  at  which  Herbert,  in  thele  and  his  o- 
ther  writings,  plainly  aims  at — to  overthrew  revelation^  and  to 
cjiahlijh  natural  religion  in  its  room.  It  is  not  my  defign  or 
province  at  prefent,  to  defend  revelation  againft  the  efforts  of 
tliis  or  any  other  author,  though  I  think  it  were  a  bufmefs  of 
no  great  dlilicuity  to  remove  what  Herbert  has  faid  againft  it  ; 
yet  fince  1  hue  mentioned  his  attempt  upon  it,  i  cannot  pafs 
it  without  fome  ftiort,  but  juft  remarks  upon  his  unfair,  if  not 
difingenuous  v/ay  of  treating  revelation. 

1.  On  many  occafions,  with  what  candor  2LTiQ  ingenuity  him- 
felf  knew,  he  profeireth  a  great  refpe6\  to  revelation,  and  par- 
ticularly to  the  fcriptures,  and  pretends  he  dehgns  nothing  in 
prejudice  of  the  ejlablifhed  religion  :  but  any  one  that  perufes 
the  books  will  foon  fee,  that  this  is  only  like  Joab's  kifs^  a  blind 
to  make  his  reader  fecure,  and  fear  no  danger  from  the  /word 
that  he  has  under  his  garment  :  For  notwithUanding  of  this, 
he  every  where  infinuates  prejudices  againli  all  revelation,  as 
uncertain,  unneceffaryy  and  of  little  or  no  vfe  to  any,  fave  thofc 
to  whom  it  was  originally,  or  rather  immediately  given. 

2.  Upon  all  occaiions,  and  fometimes  without  any  occafion 
given  him  from  his  fubject:,  he  makes  failles  utvon  truths  of  the 
greateft  importance  in  the  Chriflian  religion  ;  fuch  as  the  doc- 
trines of  the  corruption  of  our  natare,  fatisJacUon  of  Chrijl,  and 
the  decrees  of  God,  &c.  And  having  reprefented  them  difin- 
genuoufly,  or  clfe  Ignorantly,   (which  I  !efs  fufped  in  a  man  of 

his 


26d,  AN   INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE       ghap.  xiii. 

hii  learning)  not  in  that  way  they  are  propofed  in  fcripture,  or 
taught  by  thoic  who  maintain  them,  but  under  the  difguile  of 
grofs  mifreprefentations,  miftaken  notions,  and  ftrained  con* 
fequences  :  and  having  thus  put  them  in  bead's  fkins,  as  the 
primifive  perfecutors  did  the  Chriftians,  he  lets  his  dogs  upon 
them  to  worry  them  ;  and  this  without  any  regard  had  unto  the 
foundation  they  have  in  the  fcriptures,  or  the  evidence  of  the 
proofs  that  may  be  advanced  for  the  fcriptures  in  general,  or 
thefe  doi^rines  in  particular,  and  without  all  confideration  of 
the  inconfidency  of  this  way  of  treating  truths  plainly  taught, 
and  inculcated  as  of  the  greateft  importance  in  the  fcriptures, 
with  that  refpe6l,  which  upon  other  occafions  he  pretends  to 
that  divine  book. 

3.  He  ftates  wrong  notionG  of  the  grounds  v^hereupon  reve- 
lation is  received,  and  overthrows  thofe  imaginary  ones  he  has 
fet  up,  as  the  reafons  of  our  belief  of  the  fcriptures,  and  then 
triumphs  in  hig  fuccefs.  How  eafy  is  it  to  fet  up  a  ?Jian  qfjliaw 
and  beat  him  down  with  the  finger  ! 

4.  The  Pedis  generally,  and  Herbert  in  particular,  do  grant, 
that' the  Chrillicin  revelalion  has  manifeflly  the  advantage  of  all 
oilier  pretenders  to  revelation,  as  in  refpe6t  of  the  intrinfic  excel- 
lency of  the  matter,  fo  likewile  in  refpe6t  of  the  reafons  that 
may  be  pleaded,  for  its  truth.*  And  fo  certain  and  evident  is 
this,  that  one  of  their  number  owns,  that  Chriftianity  has  **  the 

'  faireft  pretenfions  of  any  religion  now  in  the  world,"  and 
exhorts  to/'  make  a  diligent  inquiry  into  it;"  arguing,  "that 
**  if  the  pretences  of  Chriftianity  be  well  grounded,  it  cannot 
**  be  a  frivolous  and  indifferent  matter  ;"  and  he  grants  further, 
that  '*  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact  which  confirm  it,  is  hard- 
"  Iv  poffible  to  be  denied  f."  Now  notwithftanding  of  this 
m.anifeft  and  acknowledged  ditlerence  betwixt  the  fcriptures  and 
other  pretenders  to  revelation,  when  Herbert  fneaks  of  revela- 
tion, he  jumbles  all  pretenders  together  without  diftin6iion,  and 
urges  the  faults  of  the  moft  ridiculous  and  obvioully  fpurious 
pretenders,  againft  revelation,  in  general,  as  if  every  particular 
one,  and  efpecially  Chriftianity,  were  chargeable  with  thefe 
faults  :  Is  this  candid  and  fair  dealing,  to  infinuate  to  the  un- 
wary reader  tb.at  thefe  palpable  evidences  of  impofture  are 
to  be  found  in  all  revelations  alike,  while,  even  they  tl.en)- 
felves  being  judges,  the  icripturcs  are  not  concerned  in  them  ? 

Yet 
*  Re)ieiol.aici,  pag.  9,  ic.         t  Letter  to  the  Deifts,  psg.  139. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      269 

Yet  this  is  the  way  that  Cliridianity  is  treated  by  this  learned 
author;  and  his  fteps  have  been  clofely  traced  in  this  piece  of 
~  Icandalous  difingenuity,  (for  I  can  give  it  no  milder  name),  by 
Blount  and  the  other  writers  of  the  paity,  as  I  could  make  ap- 
pear by  niany  inilances,  if  need  required. 

5.  Our  author  makes  high  pretences  to  accuracy  in  fearching 
after  truth,  and  treats  all  other  authors  with  the  greateft  fcorn 
and  contempt  imaginable,  as  Ibort  in  that  point  :  yet  he  feldom 
flates  a  quetUon  fairly,  but  huddles  all  up  in  the  dark,  efpeclal- 
ly,  U'hen  he  fpeaks  about  revelation,  and  heaps  together  diffi- 
culties about  all  the  concernments  of  revealed  religion,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  diilindi  heads  to  which  they  belong.  This 
13  a  ready  way  to  ibake  the  faith  of  his  reader  about  all  truths, 
but  eftablifh  him  in  none. 

Other  reflections  1  forbear,  though  he  has  given  fair  occa- 
fion  for  many  :  but  this  is  not  njy  fubje<5l.  This  part  of  his 
difcourfe  has  been  animadveited  on  by  a  learned  author,  though 
the  book  is  not  come  to  my  hand,* 

The  other  branch  of  our  author's  defign,  viz.  His  attempt  to 
eflablilh  the  fujficiency  of  natural  religion^  is  that  wherein  I 
am  dire6ily  concerned.  This  he  only  propofes  in  his  book  de 
Veritatt  at  the  clofe,  with  a  fhort  explication  of  his  famed  five 
ArtideSt  of  which  more  anon.  And  in  a  frnall  treatife  entitled 
Religio  Laid,  fub joined  to  his  book  de  Caufu  Errorum^  he  fur- 
ther explains  them.  The  defign  of  this  laft  mentioned  treatife 
is  to  ihew,  that  the  vulgar  can  never  come  to  certainty  about  the 
truth  of  any  particular  revelation,  or  the  prefcrablcncfs  of  its 
presences  unto  others,  and  that  therefore  of  necefiity  they  mufl 
fit  down  fatisfied  with  the  religion  he  offers  ihem,  confiiling  of 
five  articles,  agreed  to,  if  we  believe  him,  by  all  religions. 

The  religion,  confiftingof  five  articles,  which  we  (liall  exhi- 
bit immediately,  he  attempts  to  prove  fufficient  by  fome  argu- 
ments in  that  iaf^  mentioned  treatife.  But  the  principal  proof, 
on  which  our  author  lays  the  whole  ftrefs  of  his  caufe,  is  at  large 
exhibited  in  another  treatife  of  our  author,  deReligione  Genliliu?n, 
publifhed  at  Amf^erdam,  anno  1663,  ^Y  J'  VoJJi.us,  fen  to 
the  great  Crer,  Joan.  Vojfius,  His  pleadings  in  thefe  and  his 
other  writings  we  ibaii  call  to  an  account  by  and  bye. 

Herbert, 

*  Baxter's  More  Reafcns  for  the  Ghriflian  Religion,  and  no  Reafo^i 
againll  it,  in  tiie  Appendix. 


270  AN   INQUIRY   INTO  THE     chap.  xm. 

Herbert,  In  his  treatife  dt  Religiont  Gtntilium^  pretends. 
Whatever  iniftakes  the  Gentile  world  was  under  in  rrjatters  of 
religion  ;  yet  there  was  as  much  agreed  to  by  all  nations,  as 
ivas  necellary  to  their  eternal  happinefs.  Particularly,  he  tells 
us,  that  they  were  agreed  about  five.  ArticleSt  of  natural  re 
ligiotif  which  he  thinks  Z-Vt  fujficient,  viz.  i.  That  is  then  9ni 
fupreme  God^  2,  That  he  is  to  be  worfliipped.  3.  That  virtue  is 
the  principal  part  of  his  worfliip.  4.  That  we  mufl  repent  of 
our  fins,  5.  That  there  are  rewards  and  punip2ments  both  in 
rkii  If e  and  that  which  is  to  come* 

Charles  Blount,  who  fet  himfelf  at  the  head  of  the  Delfts  fomc 
i^^N  years  ago,  in  a  fmall  treatife  entitled  Rdigio  Laid,  printed 
1603,  which  in  effe6t  is  only  a  tranflation  of  Herbert's  book  of 
the  fame  name,  inverting  a  little  the  order,  but  without  the  ad- 
dition of  any  one  thought  of  moment;  in  this  treatife,  I  fay,  he 
reckons  up  the  articles  of  natural  religion  much  after  the  fame 
manner,  i.  That  there  is  one  only  fupr erne  God.  2.  That  he 
chiefly  is  to  be  worfiipped*  3.  That  virtue^  goodnefs  and  piety, 
accompanied  with  faith  in,  and  love  to  God,  are  the  bejl  ways  of 
worjhipping  him,  4.  That  wefJiould  repent  of  our  fins  from 
the  bottom  of  our  hearts,  and  turn  to  the  right  wuy,  5.  That 
there  is  a  reward  and  punifhment  after  this  life^^ 

Another,  in  a  letter  dire6ted  to  Mr.  Blount,  fubfcribed  A.  W. 
has  given  us  an  account  of  them  fomewhat  different  from  both 
the  former,  in  itvtn  articles,  i.  That  there  is  one  infinite,  and 
eternal  God,  creator  of  all  things,  2.  That  he  governs  the  world 
by  providence.  3.  That  it  is  our  duty  to  worfiip  and  obey  him  as 
our  Creator  and  Governor,  4,  That  our  worfiip  con fifls  in  pray ^ 
er  to  him,  and  praife  of  him.  5.  That  our  obedience  confifs  in 
the  rules  of  right  reafon,  the  pratiice  whereof  is  moral  virtue. 
6.  That  lue  are  to  expetl  rewards  and  puniflimeuts  hereafter  ac- 
cording to  our  adions  m  this  Ife;  which  includes  the  foul's  im- 
mortaljty,  and  is  proved  by  our  admitting  providence.  7.  Ihat, 
when  we  err  from  the  rules  of  our  duty,  we  ought  to  repent  and 
trufl  in  God's  mercy  for  paidon-X  To  the  fame  purpofe,  with- 
out any  alteration  of  moment  from  what  we  have  above  quoted, 
Herbert  reckons  up  and  repeats  the  fame  articles  in  his  other 
treat  if^s. 

Thcfe 

*  DeRelig.  Gentil.  pag.   186,  210,  &c»         f  Ibid,  .19)  50. 
J  Oracles  of  Reafon,  {i'^.  197, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      271 

Thefe  other  authors  do  but  copy  after  Herbert.  To  him  the 
honour  of  this  invention  belongs,  and  he  values  himfelf  not  a 
little  upon  it.  Let  us  hear  himfelf.  **  Afque  ita  ffed  non  jint 
**  multiplici  accurataque  rdigionum  turn  diJftBione^  turn  inf pec- 
•^  tiom)  quinque  illos  articulosfepius  jam  adduBos  deprehendi, 
**  Quibus  itiam  inventis  me  Jdiciorem  Archimede  quovis  txijli- 
**  viavi  *."  He  acquaints  us,  that  he  confulted  divines  and 
writers  of  all  parties,  but  in  vain,  for  to  find  the  univerfal  reli- 
gion he  fought  after;  it  is  not  therefore  likely,  if  any  had  mould- 
ed this  univerfal  religion,  or  put  it  into  a  form  meet  for  the  De- 
iOs'  purpofe  before  him,  that  it  could  have  efcaped  his  obferva- 
tion  and  diligence. 

Now  we  have  had  a  fufficient  view  of  the  articles,  to  which 
the  Deifts  reduce  their  religion.  Let  us  next  inquire  after  the 
proof  of  this  religion  ;  the  burden  whereof  mufl  lean  upon  Her- 
bert. The  Deifts  fince  his  time  have  added  nothing  that  has  a 
(hew  of  proof  that  I  can  yet  fee.  Well,  after  he  has  in  his  other 
treatifes,  as  has  been  faid,  propofed  and  explained  his  religion, 
he  at  length  comes  to  the  proof  of  it  in  his  treatife  dt  Rcligiont 
Gentilium.  Here  the  main  ftrength  of  his  caufe  lies,  and  with 
this  we  (hall  mainly  deal ;  yet  fo  as  not  to  overlook  any  thing 
that  has  a  (hew  of  proof  elfewhere  in  his  writings. 

In  this  treatife  dt  Religione.  Gtntilium^  he  makes  it  his  work 
to  illufirate  and  prove,  *'  That  the  above-mentioned  five  arti- 
**  cles  v/ere  univerfally  believed  by  people  of  all  religions." 
This  isthe  propofition  at  which  that  whole  book  aims.  In  the 
management  of  this  fubje6t  our  author  gives  great  proof  of  di- 
ligence, vaft  reading,  and  much  philological  learning.  He 
gives  large  accounts  of  the  idolatry  of  the  Heathens  and  their 
pleas  for  it,  or  rather  of  the  pleas,  which  our  author  thought 
might  be  made  for  it ;  m  hich  has  given  occafjon  to  feveral  con- 
je6fures,  as  to  our  author's  defign  in  that  book,  and  his  other 
writings. 

I  find  a  learned  author,  who  has  bellowed  a  few  (hort  ani- 
madverfions  on  this  book,  inclined  to  think  it  not  unlikely, 
that  Herbert's  principal  defign  M'2S,  if  not  to  juftify,  yet  to  ex- 

cufe 


*  Dc  Relig.  Gent.  pag.  218. — "  And  thus,  though   not  without  -< 
**  manifold  and   accurate  difTe^ion  and  inrptdicn  of  re]igion,  1  hav< 


a 
'e 
"  found  thofe  five  articles,  that  have  already    been  ofren  quorcfl,  on 
"  finding  which!  thought  myfelf  more  happy  than  any  Archimedes.'' 


272  AN   INQ_UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  xiir. 

rufe  the  idolatry  of  the  church  of  Romef.  And  if  one  confi- 
ders  how  many  pleas  Herbert  makes  for  t'ne  Gentiles'  idolatry, 
and  that  they  are  generally  fach  as  may  ferve  for  the  Homaniiis' 
purpofe  ;  and  if  it  is  fwrther  confidered,  that  Herbert  elfe where 
feems,  upon  many  occafions,  to  found  the  whole  certainty  of 
revelation  upon  the  authority  of  the  church,  and  that  alone,  and 
the  va(\  power  he  gives  to  the  church  as  to  the  appointment  of 
riies,  yea,  and  all  the  ordmanc^.s  of  loorfkip  ;  if  it  is  further 
confidered  how  concerned  fome  pcrfons  were  for  an  accommo- 
dation with  the  church  of  Rome  at  that  time,  when  our  author 
wrote,  and  how  far  Herbert  was  concerned  in  that  party,  who 
were  flriving  for  this  reconciliation  ;  if  I  fay,  all  thefe  things 
are  laid  together,  this  conjeciure  will  not  appear  deftitute  of 
probability.  I  might  add  to  this,  that  Herbert  makes  ufe  of 
pleas  not  much  unlike  thofe  which  are  ufecl  by  the  church  of 
Rome  to  Hirike  Proteftants  out  of  their  faith,  that  they  may  at 
length  fall  in  with  the  infallili>ie  guide.  In  fine,  I  dare  be  bofd 
to  undertake  the  maintenance  of  this  againft  any  oppofer,  that 
,y  Herbert's  method  followed  out,  will  inevitably  make  the  vulgar 
atheifts  ;  whether  he  defigned  by  this  to  make  them  Papii\s,  I 
know  not,  nor  fhall  I  judge.  How  far  this  conje^^ure  will 
hold,  I  leave  to  others  to  judge,  i  ihall  only  add  this  one  thing 
more,  that  the  feeming  oppofition  of  Herbert's  defign  unto 
PopiQi  principle?,  and  his  thrufls  at  the  Romifh  clergv,  will  not 
be  fullicient  to  clear  him  of  all  fufpicion  in  this  matter,  with 
thofe  who  have  ferioufiy  perufed  the  books  written  by  Papids  in 
difguife,  on  defign  to  (hake  the  faith  of  the  vulgar  I'ort  of  Pro- 
taliants,  in  (bme  of  which,  there  is  as  great  appearance  at  iirfl 
view  of  a  dehgned  overthrow  of  Popery,  and  as  hard  thinj^s 
faid  ag-ainll  the  Romiih  clergy.  Good  water-men  can  look  one 
wav  and  row  another.  What  there  was  of  this,  will  one  day  be 
manifcih 

The  Delfts  maintain,  that  '*  their  religion,  confifiing  of  the 
*'  above-named  five  articles,  is  fufncient."  It  is  the  avowed  de- 
fign of  Herbert  in  his  book,  to  aiTert  this  and  prove  it  ;  and  yet 
he  fpends  it  v/holly  in  proving  this  propofition,  **  That  fhefe 
**  five  articles  did  univerfally  obtain."  Now  it  feems  of  im- 
V  portance  to  inquire,  why  Herbert  flioual  be  at  fo  much  pains  to 
prove  this.  How  does  univeri'a!  reception  of  thefe  articles  efla- 
bliilihisreii'Mon,  and  of  what  conlequcnce  :s  it  to  tlic  De:(!.i' caufe? 

For 

f  Abra'i.  HciJanus  de  Oriijine  Erroris,  JLib.  VI.  (Zr\  XI.  p.^or. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-       273 

For  clearing  this,  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  it  is  a  common 
religion  that  Herbert  is  inquiring  after,  which  may  be  equally 
ufeful  to  all  mankind  ;  and  nothing  can  agree  to  this,  which  is 
not  commonly  received.  ^  And  Herbert  has  before  laid  down 
this  for  a  principle,  that  the  only  way  to  diflinguifh  common 
notices  from  thefc  which  are  not  fo,  is  U7nveifal  reception* 
This  according  to  him  is  the  only  fure  criterion.     **  Rtligio  ejl 

*'   notitia   communu Vtdendum  igitur  eji^  qu^nam   m  re- 

*'  ligione  ex  confenj'u  univerjali  Jitnt  agnita:  univerja  conftran- 
**  tur:  Qua  antem  ab  oinnibus  tanquam  vera  in  religione  agnof- 
**  cuntur^ccmmunes  notitidi  hahcnddi  Junt»  Sed  dices  e/fe  lab  oris 
**  iwprobi:  at  alia  ad  veritates  notitiarum  communium  non  fu- 
**  perefl  via;  quas  tamen  ita  jnagni  faclmus,  ut  in  illis  Jolts  fa- 
"  picntui:  divine  univerfalis  arcana  deprchendi  pajjint,*" 

But  to  fet  this  matter  in  a  full  light,  I  Ihall  make  appear,That 
a  failure  in  this  attempt,  to  prove  that  thefe  were  univerfally  a- 
greed  to,  is  inevitably  ruinous  to  the  Dcifts'  caufe  and  plea  for 
a  common  religion  ;  though  the  proof  of  this  point  will  be  very 
far  from  inferring  that  there  is  a  common  religion,  as  feall  be 
cleared  afterwards.  And  this  will  give  further  light  iato  the 
realbns  of  Herbert's  undertaking. 

To  this  purpofe  then  it  is  to  be  obferved,  That  the  Dcifts 
being  agreed  about  the  reje6tion  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  and 
that  revelation  whereon  it  is  founded,  they  are  for  ever  barred 
from  the  acceptance  of  any  other  revelation  as  the  meafure  of 
religion,  that  the  world  knows*.  For  they  own  no  revelation 
ever  had  fo  fair  a  plea,  and  fuch  probable  grounds  to  fupport 
its  pretenfions,  as  the  Chriftian  revelation  has.  However  there- 
fore, the  generality  of  the  Deifts  were  fatisfied  to  lay  afide  the 
Ghrifllan  religion,  which  will  not  allow  them  that  liberty  in 
following  the  courfes  that  they  are  refolved  upon,  without  put- 
ting any  thing  into  its  place  ;  yet  the  more  fober  fort  faw,  that 
to  reje6\  this  religion  and  put  none  in  its  place,  would,   by  the 

L  i  world 

*  De  Veritate,  pag.  55 "  Religion    is  a    common  notice,  we 

"  ought  to  fee  therefore  what  things  in  religion  are  acknowledged  by 
<«  umverfal  confent.  let  ali  be  gathered  together,  and  thofe  things  in 
«*  religion  which  are  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  true  are  to  he  reckon- 
"  ed  common  notices.  But  yea  will  fay  that  this  is  a  taik  of  immenfe 
«  labour*  But  no  other  way  remains  for  arriving  at  thofe  truths  that 
"  Fnay  he  reckoned  common  notices.  Which  however  we  value  fo 
"  highly,  that  in  thefe  alone  the  fecrsts  of  divine  univerfal  wiidom  can 
"  be  fouiid." 


274  AM    INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  xiix. 

world,  be  counted  plain  atbeirra,  uhich  defervedly  is  odious 
in  the  world.  Therefore  they  Taw  there  was  a  neceiTity  of  iub- 
fiituting  one  in  its  pince. 

Now  firKre  revelation  was  rcjecVed,  nothing  remained,  but  to 
pretend,  that  realbn  was  able  to  fupply  the  defedl  and  aflbrd  a 
i'ufficlent  religion,  a  religion  that  is  able  to  aniwer  all  the  pur- 
pofes  for  which  others  pretend  revealed  religion  neceflary. 

When  once  {iiey  were  come  tl>is  length,  it  was  eafy  to  fee 
that  it  uiiglit  be  ijiquired,  Whether  this  rational  religion  lay 
within  the  reach  o*  every  man's  reafon,  or  was  only  to  be  found 
out  by  petfons  of  learning? 

If  it  is  pretended,  that  only  perfons  of  learning,  application 
and  uncommon  abilities,  could  attain  the  dilcovery  of  this  re- 
ligion, the  diificuUics  whereon  ths*  pretenders  are  caft,  are  ob- 
viouf<. 

Wh.^t  fiiall  then  become  of  their  argiimcnt  againH;  revealed 
religion,  **  that  it  is  not  univerfal,  that  it  is  not  received  by  all 
mankind,  that  therefore  it  is  not  amended  wi;hfuHicient  evi- 
dctic.:."  Upon  this  fuppcfition  there  is  a  fair  ground  for  retort- 
ing the  argument,  wlili  no  iel^s,  if  not  more  force,  againfl  natu- 
ral religion. 

AgJiin,  what  lliall  became  of  th;it  plea,  which  they  make,  for 
natural  religion,  *'  that  God  mufi  provide  all  his  creatures  in 
the  mcuHs  necclfary  for  attaining  that  happinefs  they  are  capa- 
ble of?"  May  they  not,  on  this  fuppofuion,  be  urged,  that, 
according  to  it,  the  generality  are  not  provided  with  fuch  means? 

Nor  will  it  avail  to  pretend,  that  thofe  who  are  capable  cf 
this  difcovery,  are  obliged  to  teach  others  the  laws  of  nature* 
For,  it  m.ay  be  inquired,  Mufl  the  people  take  all  on  trull  from 
th-ni,  or  fee  with  their  own  eyes?  If  they  mull  take  all  on  truft, 
then  is  lliere  not  here  a  fair  occafion  fur  charging  priefi-craft 
upon  them,  Vv'ho  blame  it  fo  much  in  others  ?  Will  not  this  o- 
Idige  our  wits,  men  of  reafon  and  learning,  to  turn  creed  and 
Jyfiem'??iakers?  Further,  what  will  they  fay  of  their  own  negle<fl, 
and  the  neglecl  of  the  learned  world  in  this  matter?  How  will 
they  reconcile  tiiis  to  the  notion  of  God's  goodnefs,  of  which 
they  talk  fo  much,  to  Aifpend  the  happinefs  of  the  greater  part 
of  mankind  on  their  care  and  diligence,  who  quite  negieit  them, 
biU  keep  up  their  knowledge,  and  thereby  expofe  the  poor  vul- 
gar to  inevitable  ruin?  Moreover,  ifthryjet  up  for  teachers, 
they  muft  ibew  their  credentials.  Finally,  there  is  no  place, 
i]pon  this  fuppofuion,   left  for  the  ftrongetl   pleas  for  a  fuMici- 

ent 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       275 

ent  religion,  that  is  common  to  mankind,  which  are  taken 
from  the  nature  of  God  and  man,  and  their  mutual  relation  ; 
becaule  ail  thefe  arguments  conclude  equally  for  all  n33tikind, 
and  (o  are  not  adapted  to  alTert  fome  peculiar  prerogative  in  one 
above  another.  Nor  are  any  able  to  juftify  a  claim  to  any  fur- 
ther ability  this  way,  than  be  can  Tatisfy  the  world  of,  by  the 
effects  of  it.  When  a  man  pretends  to  no  other  abilities,  than 
fuch  as  are  due  to  human  nature,  that  kg  is  a  man  is  fullicient 
to  juftify  his  claim;  but  if  he  pretends  to  fome  eminency  in  na- 
tural or  acquired  endowments  above  others,  he  mufl  give  fuch 
proofs  of  it,  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  requires;  that  is,  he  mud 
make  it  appear,  that  he  has  that  ability,  by  atllngs  proportion- 
able to  the  nature  and  degree  of  the  power  that  he  claims;  and 
further  than  this  is  done,  no  wife  man  will  believe  him.  It 
will  not  help  them  out  here,  to  fay,  that  they  only  of  better  ca- 
pacities, and  who  have  more  Icifure,  are  able  to  difcover  this 
natural  religion  ;  but  the  vulgar  are  capable  of  judging  and  fee- 
ing wiih  their  own  eyes  when  it  is  propofed  :  For,  befides  that 
all  the  former  .difficulties,  or  moft  of  them  recur  here,  fiill  it 
may  be  inquired,  Is  this  made  appear?  The  difficulties  on  this 
fide  are  unfurmountable. 

Wherefore,  of  neccllity,  they  mud  maintain,  **  that  every 
man  is  able  to  find  out  and  difcover  what  is  fuHkient  for  himfelf 
in  metters  of  religion.'  But  now  when  this  is  alTerted,  if  the 
experience  of  the  world  lie  againfl  them,  and  it  be  found,  as  is 
commonly  fuppofed,  that  many  nations,  nay,  the  far  greater 
part  of  mankind,  had  no  fuch  religion,  this  will  much  prejudge 
their  opinion,  about  every  man's  having  this  ability  of  finding 
out  a  religion,  or  as  much  in  religion  as  was  necefiary  to  his 
own  happinefs. 

How  will  they  perfuade  the  u'orld  of  fuch  an  ability,  if  expe- 
rience is  not  made  appear  to  favour  them?  it  is  commonly 
thought,  and  we  have  made  it  appear,  that  the  wifefl  men,  when 
they  elfayed  what  pou'er  they  had  of  this  fort,  foully  blundered, 
a.nd  fell  fhort  of  fatlcfying  either  themfelves  or  others  ;  and  that 
the  world  generally  acknoivledged  the  want  of  any  experience 
of  this  ability,  and  therefore  looked  after  revelations  with  that 
greedinefs,  (hat  laid  them  open  to  be  impofed  on,  by  every  vain 
pretender  to  fupsrnatural  revelation- 

Now  if  things  are  allowed  to  be  thus,  how  ihali  they  pro-^re 
man  pofletred  of  this  power,  if  they  are  cut  orl  from  the  advan- 
tage of  the  ufual  fountain  of  conviction,  ia  maUtrs  of  this  nature? 

What 


^70  AN     INCIUIRY     INTO     THE     chap,  mil 

What  is  the  w^  we  come  to  know,  that  ali  men  have  a  power 
of  underflanding,  or  that  fuch  a  power  is  due  to  his  nature?  Is 
it  not  hence,  that  wherever  we  meet  with  m.cn,  we  find  them 
exerting  the  a«5ls  of  underftanding?  And  the  like  may  be  faid 
of  his  other  powers.  Now  if  it  is  once  admiitted,  that  there  arc 
iingle  perlons,  nay,  whole  nations,  yea  more,  many  nations 
that  have  no  experience  of  this  pretended  ability,  in'reference 
to  matters  of  religion,  how  will  they  ever  be  able  to  perfuade  the 
world  that  all  m.en  have  it?  More  efpccially,  if  it  be  admitted, 
that  the  learned  themfelves  were  heredefe6tive,  as  to  that  which 
perfonsof  the  meaneft  abilities  and  leafl  leifure  are  fuppoied  a- 
ble  for  :  this  will  look  very  ill,  if  a  man  who  toils  all  his  days 
at  the  plough  and  harrow,  could  make  this  difcovery,  how  could 
a  man  of  learning  and  application  find  it  hard. 

In  a  word,  if  things  are  thus  rtatecl,  as  is  generally  fuppofed, 
and  has  been  already  proven,  and  fhall  be  further  c'eared  anon, 
then  there  is  little  left  them  to  pretend  for  this  natural  and  uni- 
verfal  ability  of  mankind  in  matters  of  religion,  if  not  perhaps, 
to  tell  us  a  ftory  of  God's  being  obliged,  in  point  of  gcodnefs,  to 
endow  ail  mankind  with  a  capacity,  whereof  there  is  no  evidence 
inexperience;  yea,  which  the  experience  of  the  world  plainly 
declares  them  to  want.  But  this  will  not  eafily  take  with  men 
of  fobriety  and  fenfe  :  For  it  is  not  more  evident,  that  there  is  a 
God,  than,  that  this  God  mujl  do  whatever  is  proper  and  ftxit able 
for  him  to  do  :  And  on  the  contrar}'',  that  it  zufis  not  nccejfary  or 
proper  for  him  to  do  any  thing  that  really  he  has  not  done.  If 
then,  any  iball  pretend  it  becoming  or  neceffary  for  God  to  do 
any  thing,  which  experience  (hews  he  has  not  done,  he  will  be 
fo  far  from  obtaining  credit  with  the  world,  that  on  the  contrary 
he  will  jullly  fall  under  the  fufpicion  of  atheifm,  and  an  evil 
defign  againft  God.  For  to  fay,  that  God  in  point  of  gocdnefs, 
was  obliged  to  do  this,  which  experience  Oiews  he  has  not  done 
is  plainly  to  fay,  God  adied  not  as  became  him.  There  was 
therefore  a  plain  neceliity  of  undertaking  to  prove  experience  on 
their  fide,  if  Deifm  was  to  be  fupportcd. 

If  the  common  apprehenfions  of  men,  who  enjoy  the  light  of 
Chriftianity,  with  refpeCl  to  the  flate  of  the  Heathen  world,  are 
v/eli  grounded,  ail  (he  pretences  of  DciOs  as  to  the  fufficiency 
of  natural  religion  are  for  ever  ruined,  and  quite  fubver(ed. 

It  was  but  necelTary  therefore,  that  the  learned  Herbert,  who 
undertook  to  maintain  the  caufe,  fhould  attempt  to  (liew,  that 
experience  was  on  their  fide,  and  that  in  facl  a  religion  in    it- 

felf 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       277 

{■A{  fuflficient  did  univerfally  obtain.     And  he  bad  the  more  rca- 
ion  to  be  concerned  in  tliis  matter,  becaufe  he   avows  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  without  a  fuppofuion  of  fuch  an  univerfal  religion 
as  the  Dciils  do  plead  for,  Providence    cannot  be   maintained. 
Et  quideriij  fays  he,  quum    media  ad  viBum  veflitumque  heic 
accommodata  fuppeditarit  cundis  7iatura  Jive  previdentia  re- 
rvvi  cowmumSi  Jufpicari  non  potui,  cmidem  De urn,  five  ex 
'  natura,five  ex  gratia  in  fuppeditandis  ad  beatiorem  hoc  nqftro 
*  ftatum  mediisy  ulli  hominum  deejfe  pojfe,  vel  velle,  adeo  ut  li" 
'  cet  mediis  tllis  parum  reBe  vel  jeliciter  ufi  fint  Gentiles ^  hand 
'   ita  iamen  per  Deum   optimum   maximum  ftetent,  quo  minus 
'  Jalvi  fierent* »'  And  as  it  is  clear  that  this  author  thinks,  that 
Providence  is  not  to  be  maintained  without  an  univerfal  religi- 
on ;  fo  it  is   fufficiently  evident,  that  this  univerfal  religion  Is 
not  to  be  maintained,  if  experience  lies  againfl  it. 

Here  then  was  a  plain  neceflity  for  undertaking  this  argu- 
ment, and  proving,  or  at  leaft  pretending  to  prove,  that  all  man- 
kind had  a  fufricient  religion,  or  were  able  to  know  ail  that  was 
necelTary.  For  we  fee  the  whole  frame  of  Deifm  fails  to  the 
ground,  if  this  is  overthrown.  This  therefore  was  an  under- 
taking worthy  of  our  noble  author's  great  parts,  long  experi- 
ence, great  charity  to  mankind,  and  the  great  concern  he  pro- 
felTes  to  hnd  in  himfelf  for  the  vindication  of  Providence. 

And  fure  if  fuch  a  man,  after  fo  much  pain?,  has  failed  in 
the  proof  of  this  point,  any  that  may  fucceed  him,  may  juflly 
defpair  of  fuccefs.  He  read  ail  the  Heathen  authors  to  find  this 
univerfal  religion,  and  he  was  as  willing  and  defirous  to  find  it 
as  any  man.  And  he  has  given  in  this  learned  book  evidence 
enough  of  his  reading. 

But  fince  no  religion  was  to  be  admitted,  fave  that  whereon 
all  men  were  agreed,  it  was  wifely  done  by  our  author,  that  he 
reduced  this  univerfal  creed  to  a  few  articles*  For  one  who 
knew  fo  much  of  the  fiate  of  the  world,  could  not  but  fee,  that 
they  "Were  not  very  many  wherein  they  were  asrced. 

Well, 

*  De  Rclig.  Gentil.  Cap.  i.  pag.  4. — <*  And  indeed  as  the  coinmon 
"  nature  or  providence  of  things  here,  has  furnifhed  all  men  with  full 
«  means  of  food  and  cloathing,  L  could  not  fufpe<ft  that  the  fame  God, 
"either  from  his  nature  or  from  grace,  could  or  would  be  wanting  to 
"  any  of  mankind  in  fupplying  him  with  the  means  of  attaining  a  more 
«  happy  ftate  than  the  prefent,  fo  that  although  the  Heathens  ufed  thofe 
"  means  unlkilfully  or  unhappily,  yet  the  beft  and  greateft  God  was 
"  cot  to-be  blamed  for  their  not  being  faved." 


278  AN   INQ_U1RY    INTO    THE        chap.  xiv. 

Well,  he  undertakes  and  f^oes  through  with  the  work,  and 
concludes  with  that  memorable  triumph  above  mentioned  ;  **  Jt- 
*'  que  ita  (fed  non  fine  jnultipliciy  accurataque  religionum  turn 
**  d?f/'eclioney  turn  infpedionej  quinqueillos  articulos,  fipius  jam 
**  aadudos  deprehendi'  Om5us  etiam  inveritis  me  Jeliciorem 
**  quoms  Archiinede  exijlimavi*' 

But  one  might  poiTibiy  a(k,  How  it  could  cod  our  author  To 
much  labour  and  pains  to  find  out  this  religion,  and  to  fever 
the  articles  belonging  to  it  from  others,  with  which  they  were 
intermixed,  when  every  illiterate  man  mull  be  fuppofedable  to 
do  this? 

However,  if  our  author  is  not  belied  by  common  fame,  he  re- 
pented, that  he  had  fpent  his  time  fo  ill  in  contributing  fo  far 
to  the  advancement  of  irreligion  ;  though  others  contradict  this 
and  tell  us,  that  dying  he  left  this  advice  to  his  children, — 
**  They  talk  of  trufting  in  Chrifi  for  falvation  ;  but  I  would 
*'  have  you  be  virtuous,  and  trufi:  to  your  virtue,  to  make  you' 
*'   happy." 

Whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  I  fhali  now  proceed  to  examine 
our  author's  arguments. 


CHAP.       XIV. 

fhUrcin  it  is  inquired,  Whether  Herbert  has  proved  that  his  five 
Articles  did  univerfally  obtain  ? 

T  ^yE  have  heard  our  author's  five  articles  above ;  he  pretends 
*  ''  to  make  it  appear,  that  they  were  every  where  receiv- 
ed ;  we  fhall  now  inquire,  Whether  the  arguments  adduced  by 
him  do  evirxc  this?  And  then  in  the  next  place,  vvc  (liali  fee 
whether  it  is  indeed  true.  And  for  method's  fake,  we  fhall  ipeak 
of  every  article  apart,  and  dilTe6l  and  infped  his  book,  to 
find  all  that  he  offers,  which  has  the  leaft  appearance  of  proof. 

ARTICLE       I. 

There  is  One  Supreme  God, 

TH  AT  which  our  author  pretends  to  prove  as  to  this  arti- 
cle is,  that  it  was  generally  owned  by  all  nations,  that  there  is 
one  Supreme  Beings  and   that  this  Supreme  Being,  .whom   they 

owaed* 


PRINCIPlrES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       279 

Cvvned,  was  the  fame  whom  we  adore.  Wc  are  not  now  to 
difpute,  whether  tliis  article  may  be  known  by  the  light  of  na- 
ture ;  nor  whether  fome  particular  perf&ns  went  not  a  great  xxzy 
in  the  acknowledgmen.t  of  it.  This  we  have  before  granted : 
But  the  queliion  is,  Whether  all  nations  agreed  in  this,  that 
there  is  one  Supreme  God,  and  he  the  very  fame  whom  we  adore? 
Let  us  hear  our  author,  '*  Quarnvis  enhn  de  aliqidhus  alijs  Dsi, 
**  five  attrihutisi^ive  muntribus  dijceptatio  inter  veteres  fjfet,  uti 
**  fuo  loco  monjirahimus  \  fummum  tamen  aliquem  extare,  and 
**  Jemper  extitijfe  Deum,  neque  apudfupientes,  negue  apttd  infipi- 
**  entes  dubiuin  (putoj  fuit*^'  And  afterwaids,  when  bethinks 
the  fird  part  of  his  article  fuihciently  cleared,  he  proceeds  to  the 
fecond  part  of  it,  **  Reliquum  ejl,  ut  Deupi  fummum  Gentiliur/if 
tnndiun  ac  noflrum  e[[e  probcmus.'\'  Thus  we  fee  what  our  au- 
thor pretends.  Whether  he  has  proved  this,  we  are  nov/  to  in- 
quire. Ke  has  not  digefied  his  arguments,  nor  caft  them  into 
any  fuch  mould,  as  might  make  it  obvious  wherein  the  force  of 
them  lies,  and  therefore  we  muft  be  at  pains  to  fcrape  to- 
gether, whatever  is  anywhere  through  his  book  dropped,  that 
may  contribute  in  the  leall  toward  the  Orengthening  of  his 
caufe  ;  and  we  il-all  not  omit  any  thing  willingly,  that  has  tiie 
leaf!  appearance  of  force. 

The  firft  obfervation  our  author  infills  on  to  this  purpofe  is, 
**  That  the  Gentiles  did  not  intend  the  fame  by  the  name 
God  J  that  we  now  do.  We  by  that  name  deiicn  the  Supreme, 
Eternal,  Independent  Being  ;  whereas  they  intend  no  more  than 
any  virtue  or  power  fuperior  to  man,  on  which  man  did  any  way 
depend."  Id  oinne  D€um  vocita,runt  quod  vim  a/iguam  eximia?n  in 
injeriordj  fed  m  homines  pr^ccipue  ederet.X  This  he  frequent- 
ly inculcates,  and  tells  us  in  the  firft  page  of  his  book,  that  the 
obfervation  of  this,  was  that  which  inclined    him  to  think,  or 

pre  fume 

*  De  Relig.  Gent.  pag.  158. — *<  For  although  there  may  have  been 
"  difputes  among  the  ancients  about  certahi  other  attributes  cr  cfHces  of 
'*  God,  ?.s  vre  fnali  (hew  in  its  own  place,  yer  it  was  never  doubted,  I 
*'  think  eidier  among  the  wife  or  the  unvvife,  that  fome  Supreme  God 
"  exifted,  and  had  always  exifted.  " 

f  Ibid,  106. — "It  remains  to  prove  that  the  Suprerne  God  of  tl;e 
**  Heathen's  was  the  fame  as  curs." 

*  De  Relig.  Gent.  pa^].  i3.~'<  T^ev  call.eti  all  that  God,  which 
<*  produced  any  ccnfiderable  effed  on  inferior  thing?,  bu:  efpccirily 
**  upon  rren." 


28o  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO  THE        chap.  xiv. 

prcfurr.e  the  Gentiles  not  chargeable  with  that  grofs  Polythcifm, 
with  which  moft  do,  and  he  hiniCelf  had,  upon  an  flight  view 
of  their  religion,  well  nigh  once  concluded  them  chargeable. 

If  the  Gentiles  rrreant  the  fame  by  the  word  God,  which  we 
^o,  no  doubt  they  ftand  chargeable  with  the  moft  grofs,  unac- 
countable, abfurd  and  ridiculous  Polythcifm  imaginable  :  For 
fcarce  is  there  any  thing  animate  or  inanimate,  but  by  fome  way 
or  other  became  deified.  Qiiicguid  /rumi(s,pelaguSf  calum  mira- 
hiU  gignuntf  id  dexere  deoSt  colles,  jreta,  JIuminay  Jlamjnas* 

But  our  athor  is  not  willing  to  admit  that  they  were  (o  ab- 
furd ;  and  to  induce  us  to  favourable  fentiraents,  he  has  bleffed 
us  with  this  obfervation,  I'hat  when  they  called  thofe  creatures 
animate  and  inanimate  gods^  they  meant  no  fuch  thing  as  we  do 
by  that  name^  Well,  if  we  Ibould  grant  that  the  wifer  fort,  at 
leaft,  or  perhaps  even  the  vulgar  too,  did  fometimes  fo  under- 
Oand  the  word,  as  he  alleges,  will  that  ferve  his  purpofe,  and 
fatisfy  him  ?  Nay,  by  no  means,  unlefs  we  grant  him,  that 
they  always  fo  uiiderilood  the  word,  fave  when  they  fpoke  of 
the  One  true  God,  But  this  is  too  iriuch  to  be  granted,  unlefs 
he  prove  it  ;  elpecially  if  we  are  able  to  evince,  that  not  a  few, 
both  wife  and  unwiTe,  believed  that  there  were  more  than  One 
Eternal,  Independent  Being  :  and  polTibly  this  may  be  made 
appear  afterward.  A  learned  author,  in  reproach  of  the  Gre- 
ci:^n  r-nd  Roman  learning,  fays,  **  That  fetting  afide  wliat  they 
"  learned  out  of  Egypt,  they  could  never  by  themfelves  de- 
'*   termine  whether  there  were  many  Gods  or  but  one\>'* 

The  nex^  thing  our  author  infifls  on  to  this  purpofe,  15;, 
**  That  different  names  do  not  always  point  out  different  gods, 
but  different  virtues  of  the  fame  God."  **  Tot  Dei  apptl- 
"  lationesy  quot  vninera^  adeoq  ;  fi  triginta  milia  Deum  no- 
'*  mina  quod  ah  CLnomao  &  Hejiodo  in  'Seoyow^s  perhibetar, 
''  jupponat  qi'.ifpiam,  6?  tot  ejus  munera  dariy  Jatendum  ejU'' 
fays  Seneca,  quoted  by   our  author:}:.     And   conlcqucntially  to 

this, 

*  Aurel.  contr.  Sym.  Lib.  I. — "  Wh?t<"ver  wonderful  thing  the 
'*  earth,  the  fea,  or  Scy  produced,  that  they  called  gods — hills,  feas, 
'*  riverr,  fire." 

+  Wolfely's  Scripture  Belief,  pag.   110. 

i  Seneca  Lib.  5.  Cap.  17.  Herbert  de  Reiig.  Gent.  pag.  13. — "  We 
««  n-iUfl  confefs  that  there  is  as  many  names  of  Cod,  as  there  are  ofScPs, 
"  fothat  if  any  one  fupjnife  that  there  are  thirty  thoufar.d  di:ferent  names 
««  of  gods,  as  ii  related  by  Oenomaus  and  Hefiod  in  his  Theogony,  we 
"  mull  acknowledge  that  there  are  likevvifc  as  many  offices  of  the  Dtitv." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       281 

ilils,  the  fame  Seneca  tells  as,  **  Sapientes  nequaquam  Jov- m 
**  cum  Intellexifie,  o/ji  in  Capitolio  aut  alijs  templis  fulrr.ino 
**  armatus  cernereiur,  fed  potius  mentem  animumque  exiOi- 
'*  malTe  omnium  cuftodem,  univerfiq  ;  adminiftratorem,  qui 
**  banc  rerum  univerfalitatem  condidcrit,  ac  eandem  nutu  fuo 
•*  gubernet,  ac  propteria  divlna  qucsq  ;  nomina  ei  convenire. 
**  Itaq  ;  optimo  jure  fatum  appellari  polTe,  ut  a  quo  crdo  feii- 
"  efve  caufarum  inter  fe  aptarum  dcpendeat.  Ita  is  Providenii- 
**  am  dicit,  quum  ipfe  provideat  ut  omnia  perpetuo  ac  peren- 
<*  ni  quodam  curfu,  ad  finem  ad  quern  ditlinata  funt,  currunt: 
'*  Naturam  quoque  nuncupari,  ex  eo  enim  cundta  nafcuntur, 
**  per  cum  quicquid  vitse  eft  particeps,  vivet:  Mundi  quin  criam 
**  nomcn  illi  congruere.  Q^iicqoud  fub  afpedum  cadit,  jpfecO, 
**  qui  feipfo  nitirur,  &  omnia  ambitu  fuo  complcclitur,  univer- 
**  faque  numine  fuo  compltt.*'*  To  the  fame  purpofe  fpeaks 
Servius  of  all  the  Stoicks,  quoted  llkewife  by  our  auihcr.f  The 
plain  EngliOi  of  ail  is,  he  would  perfuade  us  that  by  thcfc  tefii- 
monies  he  has  proved,  that  the  Geniiles,  M'hen  they  att:ibutcd 
the  name  of  god  to  fo  many  things,  inlended  no  more,  but  to 
let  out  fo  many  different  viriues,  which  all  refided  in  the  fafne 
God.  -^ 

As  to  this,  we  may  grant,  that  our  author  has  indeed  proved, 
That  different  nam.es  do  not  always  point  out  difiercnt  gods  ;  for 
lis  has  told  us  that  each  of  their  gods  had  many  diifercnt  n^m^es. 
But  this  will  do  him  no  fervice,  if  we  grant  not,  that  different 
names  never  point  out  different  gods.  But  how  {hall  we  do  this, 
when  our   author  has  Ihewed  us,  that  many  nations  wor(hippcd 

M  m  'the 

*  Herb.  De.  Rel.  Gent,  pat;^;.— «  Wife  men  did  not  meanby  Jiipi- 
"  ter,  that  ft  .tue  that  is  feen  in  the  Capitol  and  orher  (eniiJes,  arn-icd 
"  withthunderbolrs]  but  rather  ti. ought  that  thac  Mind  and  Soul  wasju  - 
•♦  piter, which  was  the  Guardian  and  Governor  ot  the  Univerfe,vvho  for- 
«  med  this  whole  world,  aiid  governs  it  by  his  nod,  and  that  all  ci\ine 
"  names  agree  to  him  He  may  therefore  be  very  juftly  called  Fatt^,  as 
"  on  him  the  order  and  feries  cf  connedcd  caufes  depends.Thus  too  he 
"  may  be  called  Providence,  as  he  provides  thac  ail  things  mould  tend 
'*  to  the  end  for  which  they  were  def.ined,  in  a  conftanr  and  perptrtual 
«  courie.    He  may  hkewife  be  called  Nature,  for  all  things  ariie  irura 

"  w     -j"^  ^'^  ^^^^^  ^^^^^    ^°  ^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^'-     ^'^y  ^^^'^   f^^e    na;ne   of 
"  World  may  agree  to  him,  for  whatever  is  viilbie  is  himfelf,  who  dc- 
«  pends  on  himfelf,   furrcunds  all  things  wiih  his  circua.fcrcrxe,  and 
«  hil.s^aJlth;ngs  with  his  divine  prefence." 
t  Do  Rcji^;.  Gentii.  pag.  37. 


282  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO   THE      ghap.  xiv. 

the  fun,  moon,  ai>d  ftars ;  and  thought  them  gods,  yezj  diftin6t 
ones  too,  different  in  their  natures  as  u  eli  as  names.  Each  ot  them 
indeed  had  different  names,  nay  each  of  them  .'  ad  inany  names, 
titles  or  elogies  heaped  on  them  by  their  fond  worfnippers,  who 
no  doubt  fancied,  that  their  gods  were  fmitten  wiih  thai  fame 
vanity,  wherewith  they  themfelves  were  tainted  ;  which  yet  as 
learned  Rivet  obfcrves,  had  a  dangerous  effe6l  upon  the  vulgar 
in  procefs  of  time:  for  ihey  were  not  fo  quick  in  their  obferva- 
tions  as  our  author.  **  Coacervacis  enun  eiogiis,  titulif que  conge f- 
**  tiSi  caplnumen  putabant,  maximoqut  inch  affici  honor t;  iia  ut 
**  tandem  qu--  diverfa  tantum  nomina  jupeijiitionis Jueranty  graf- 
*^  Jante  error e^  divtrfa  numina  haberentur,'^'* 

Further,  we  know  full  well  that  fome  of  the  more  wife  and 
learned  men,  efpecialiy  after  the  light  of  the  gofpel  began  to 
rtiine  through  the  wcrid,  began  to  be  aflianied  of  their  religion, 
and  efpecialiy  the  number  of  their  gods,  and  to  ufe  the  fame 
Ihifto,  to  pailiatc  the  fooiiin  and  wild  Polytheifm,  which  the 
gofpel  fo  fully  ejipofed  :  and  particularly  Seneca,  who  was  con- 
temporary with  Paul,  (and  by  fome,  upon  what  ground  I  now 
inquire  not,  is  faid  to  have  converfed  with  him)  and  others  of 
the  Stoicks  fteered  this  courfe,  to  vindicate  their  religion  againd 
the  aifaulis  of  the  Chriftians.  But  it  is  as  true,  this  was  a  foolifh 
attempt,  and  its  fuccefs  I  cannot  better  exprefs,  than  in  the 
words  of  the  learned  and  excellent  Dr.  Owen,  *'  PoiK|uum  au- 
*'  tem  feverius  paulo  inter  nonnullos  philofophari  cceptum  efi, 
**  atque  1imatior(^s  de  natura  divina  opiniones  inter  piurimos  ob- 
•'  tinuerant,  faplenits  pudcre  ccepit  eorum  deorum,  quos  pro- 
**  tulerant  ferrea  frcula,  ip:norantia  &  tenebris  tota  devoluta, 
**  Omnia  idco,  fuix  de  dljs  iictitijs,  Jove  fcil  :  totoque  facro  he- 
*'  lenif-ni  choragio,  vulgo  celcbrata  crant,  res  natuiales  adum- 
.**  bralle  apud  antiqous  M-jI^^Aoo/s?  contcndcrunt.  Theologiam  banc 
*'  ^\-j^iy.r,v  vocant,  quam  nihil  aliud  fuilfe  aiunt,  quam  naturje 
*'   doClfinani  allegoricam.t"    And  fome  palTages  after,  he  ihews 

the 

*  Ad  Has.  2.  8.  Pvcferente  Owen  Thcolog.  pn?.  189. — «<  For 
*<.  they  thoiiLjht  that  uyi  Deity  was  chnrmc.l  w.th  encomiiuiis  ?.nd  ti- 
**  ties  heaped  one  abov :;  another,  and  receivca  great  honour  from  thence, 
"  fo  that  at  length  thofe  different  names,  dtvifed  by  fnperltition,  by 
"  the  progrefs  of  error,  caaie  t^  be  reckop.t.d  different  deities. 

+  UW\  fupra  pag.  i(^6. — "  But  after  philofophy  began  to  be  more 
"  fcrioafi/  cultivated,  ani  more  corrtd  opinions  concerning  the  divine 
*'  nature  had  taken  pkv?  among  die  generaiiiy,  the  wife  men  began  to 

"  be. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        283 

the  vanity  of  this  attempt.  **  Pofiquarn  enim  eyangelii  lumen 
*'  ufque  adeo  radiis  fuis  terrarum  orbem  perculiffet,  uleiube- 
**  fcenda  veteris  fuperditionis  inf-inia  apud  ipfum  vulgus  in  con- 
~  **  temptum  venerit,  acutiores  lophiRss,  qoud  dixi,  quo  ftulliliam 
**  iftam  colore  novo  fucatam,  amabilem  redderent,  figmento 
**  huic  (N.  B.)  cuiadverfatur  omnis  hiiloriae  fides,  perJinacif- 
"  fime  adhseferunt.  Inr.o,  ut  obiter  dicam  innovata  eft  priniis 
**  ecclefiae  temporibus  apud  ipfos  Gentiles,  tota  philoibphandi 
"  ratio.*"  Any  one  that  would  defjre  to  fee  the  folly  of  this 
obfervation  expol'ed,  on  which  our  author  lays  fo  much  ftr els, 
may  perufe  that  chapter,  whence  thefe  words  are  quctedf.  i^'or 
is  this  more  than  what  Velleius  fpeaks  of  Zeno  a  Stoick  and  o- 
thers,"  CumHefiodi  ^Eoyot^av  interpretatur,  toilit  cmnino,(N.  B.) 
"    ufitatasperceptafque,  cognitiones  deorimi.:!:"  <^<^' 

But  were  this  true,  which  thofe  quotations  pretend,  it  will 
not  yet  come  up  to  our  author's  purpofe  ;  for  thefe  quotations 
tell  us  not  that  all  the  world  were  of  this  mind,  but  only  the 
wife  men;  and  I  fear  that  ihis  too  needs  a  refiriction.  Now 
this  comes  not  near  to  the  point.  When  our  author  has  occahon 
to  notice  fome  abfurd  pra6iices  or  opinions  that  are  againft  him, 
he  rejeasthem  with  this,  **  Qiiod  a  paucu [olummodo fuptrfitti- 
**  oft  faduviy  non  fatis  in  rdiriomm  ajferitur,  Nos  auU?7i  hand 
^  -^  "  alia 

«  be  alhamed  of  thofe  gods,  which  had  been  invented  in  the  iron  ages, 
«  that  were  entirely  involved  in  ignorance  and  daiknefs,  andthereiure 
<(  they  maintained  that  all  thofe  things  that  had  been  commonly  report- 
«  ed  of  the  fiftitioiis  gods,  viz.Jupiter  and  all  the  hierarchy  of  Greece, 
«*  fignified  onlv  certain  natural  things  in  the  fcnfc  of  the  ancient  Myiho- 
ii  logifts.  And  they  called  this  Mythological  Divinity,  which  they 
«  fa?d  was  nothing  clfe  than  the  knowledge  of  nature,  veiled  by  alle- 

*  Ubi  fupra.  pag,  198.—"  For  after  the  light  of  the  gofpel  had  (0 
«  far  enlightened  the  world  with  its  rays,  that  the  Ihameful  madnefs 
"  of  the  a'ncient  fuperftition  had  fallen  into  conteir^pt,  even  among  the 
«  vulgar,  the  more  acute  fophiih,  as  I  faid  before,  in  order  to  render 
*<  that  foolery  amiable,  by  giving  it  a  new  colour,  adlsered  moft  oblli- 
"  nately  to  this  fiaion,  though  oopofue  to  all  the  faith  oi  hiftory,  nay, 
<<  we  may  obferve  in  paffing,  that  in  the  f.rft  ages  of  the  church,  the 
«  manner  of.  philofophifing  among  the  Heathens  underwent  a  total 
"  change." 

i  Owen  ubi  fupra.  Lib    3,  Cap.  6. 

+  Cicero  de  Nat.  Door.  Lib.  i.— *^  Vv'hen  he  interprets  the  Theo- 
«  gonv  of  Heiiod,  he  entirely  overturns  altogeuier  ?he  ufual  and  re- 
<"  ceived  traditions  concerning  the  gods." 


284  AM   INQ_UIRY    INTO    THE         chap.  xiv. 

**  aha  quam  qu.'C  omnes,  vel pUrique  faltem  colutrtyfiih  rdigionis 
**  titulo  pouimuS'*"  Now  let  this  be,  as  it  is,  the  ftateefihe 
quefiion,  and  what  fonie  of  the  wifer  did,  is  nothing  at  all  to  the 
purpofe;  ard  this  indeed  is  the  point.  In  fine,  we  doubt  not 
before  v/e  have  done,  from  our  author's  own  book,  to  demon- 
ftrate,  that  wliat  he  aims  at  in  this  obfervation,  and  confequent- 
ly  all  the  fiory  of  the  jnyfiick  theology  of  the  Heathens,  is  ut- 
terly inconfident  with  all  faith  of  hiitory,  which  makes  us  as  fure 
of  this,  as  they  can  of  any  thing,  that  many  nations,  nay  mofi; 
nations,  nay  nioft  wife  men  held  a  plurality  of  gods,  even  in  the 
fcnfe  our  author  v\ould  deny.  Tlie  next  obfervation  he  makes,  is 
akin  to  the  former.  He,  follow  in  gVcdius,  as  he  tells  us,  divides 
nil  the  Gentiles'  worihip  into  proper^  JymboUcal  ^nd  mixt.'^' 
Proper  is,  when  the  true  God,  or  the  fun,  or  the  moon  is  wor- 
fhipped  as  the  true  God,  and  the  worftnp  is  defigned  ultimately 
tj  terminate  in  their  honour:  Symbolic  is,  when  the  true  God 
is  worfnipped  in  the  fun,  as  an  image,  reprefentation  or  fym- 
bol  of  hi?T>  ;  tlien  the  worihip  is  not  defigned  only,  nor  mainly 
to  terminate  on  the  fun,  but  on  the  true  God.  As  for  the 
mixt,  we  ave  not  concerned  to  fpcak  of  it.  Ke  would  every 
where  have  us  to  believe,  that  all  their  worfliip  was  fymbolical, 
and  as  fuch  he  frequently  ieems  to  juiV.fy  and  avouch  it  as  rea- 
fonable,  which  the  Papifts  will  readily  tliank  him  for  ;  and  he 
cxprefiy  aiferts  this,  th.it  all  **  their  worihip,  fave  what  was  di- 
reitlv  audreflc-d  to  the  true  God,*'  which  I  believe  was  very  lit- 
tle, *'  was  fymbolic."  Atque  cultum  proprium  nullum  Juijfe 
olvn  preterqucv7i  furmni  Dei,  videtur.X  ^^  is  well  that  he  expreilcs 
this  pcfition  modcftly,  as  being  confcious  how  great  ground  o- 
thers  will  fee  to  jud^e  otherwife.  And  the  reafon  that  follows, 
drawn  tVom  the  alleged  evidences  of  the  thing,  we  Ihall  have 
under  conhderation  anon.  But  toward  the  clote  of  his  bcok,  he 
calls  them  ignorarJs,  oi  Jcioliy  that  believes  not  as  he  believes 
in  this  matter. 

But 

*  Do  Relig.  Gent.  pa^r.  12. — "  What  was  done  fuperftitioufly  by  a 
<<  few  only,  cannot  be  faid  to  be  a  part  of  the  gcner.d  relij^ion,  but 
<c  we  place  under  ihe  tide  of  religion  no  nther  things  than  thofe  which 
n  all,  or  at  kali  the  moft  part  practiied." 

t  Jbld.  Y^%'  183. 

t  Ibid.  pag.  226. — "  And  there  feems  to  have  been  no  proper  wor- 
"  Ihip  of  old,  e.-flcept  that  of  the  Supreme  God." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      285 

But  it  would  be  expected,  that  when  he  advances  fuch  a  bold 
pofition,  and  is  To  hard  on  them  that  diffcnt  from  him,  he  would 
give  good  proof  of  it  ;  but  if  any  expe6t  that,  he  will  find  him- 
ielf  deceived.  1  find  indeed  a  paffage  quoted  with  a  high  com- 
mendation to  this  purpofe.  *'  Atque  hie  dt  cullu  dei  Jymbolico 
•*  preclarum.  locum  ex  Maximo  Tyrio,  Dijfert-  38.  quef/i  adducit 
**  Vo^ius,  fupprimere  non  poffum>  Burbari  o?nnes  pariter  De^ 
"  V7?i  ejjt  intciligunt ;  conjlituere  interim  fibi  alia  atque  alia  fig^ 
**  na :  ignanPerfi  imaginem  qnt  unum  duret  diem,  vorax  quid 
*'  ^  in faiiabiley  fie  Maximi  verba  vtrtit  Voj]ius*''  But  what 
is  all  this  to  the  purpofe  ?  Doth  this  quotation  from  a  Platonic 
philofopher,  who  lived  an  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Chrift, 
when  the  gofpel  had  overfpread  the  whole  world,  and  chafed 
the  i^agan  darknefs  away,  and  made  them  ail^amed  of  their  old 
opinions,  and  improven  reafon,  prove  any  thing?  To  fpend 
time  on  this,  after  what  has  been  laid  above,  were  to  trifle  with 
a  witnefs.  The  Deifis  have  not,  nor  can  they  ever  prove  the 
truth  o-  this  bold  affcrtion  ;  the  falfhood  of  which  we  may  dete<5l 
before  we  have  done.  But  hitherto  our  author  has  only  ufed 
hhjiiield;  we  muft  next  fee  whether  his  fword  be  not  of  bet- 
ter metal.  All  that  has  been  hitherto  faid,  is  only  a  dcfenfa- 
tive  for  the  Heathen's  opinions  and  practice  :  We  mull  now  iee 
by  what  arguments  he  proves  that  his  firl\  article  did  univer- 
ialiy  obtain. 

His  firfl  argument  leans  upon  a  few  quotations  from  fome  Hea- 
thens, who  ailert,  that  there  is  one  Supreme  Being,  fuch  asHi- 
erocles,  Zoroailer,  and  others,  fome  of  old  and  fome  of  late. 

But  all  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpofe  :  For  were  there  twenty 
times  more  who  faid  fo,  this  v.'iil  not  prove  the  point  he  is  obli- 
ged to  make  good.  He  has  undertaken  to  (hew  that  it  was  not 
doubted  among  wife  or  unwife,  tkat  there  was  one  fupre?ne  God, 
and  ke  the  fame  whom  we  adore.  Now  what  is  this  to  the  pur- 
pofe, to  bring  the  opinions  of  a  few  learned  men,  without  tel- 
ling what  were  the  opinions  of  the  nations  or  times  where  they 
lived,  or  of  the  world  at  large V  It  is  not  the  queilion,  What  Se- 
neca, 

*  De  Rcl.  Gent.  pag.  70.—"  And  here!  cannot  fupprefs  a  famous 
«  place  in  Maximus  Tyrius,  DifT.  38.  which  is  quoted  by  VoiTius. 
"  All  the  barbarians  believe  equally  that  there  is  a  God,  but  fet  up 
•*  diiterent  figns  or  repiefenrations  of  hira.  For  exnirple,  the  Perilans 
*•'  chufefire,  an  image  that  laih  but  one  day,  fomething  voracious  and 
♦'  infatiablc.  Thus  does  Voluus  render  the  words  of  Maximus." 


286  AN   INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE       chap.  xiv. 

neca,  Zcroafler,  Plato,  and  twenty  more,  thought,  nay  what 
whole  nations  bebdes  thought?  but.  What  the  whole  world 
thought  -in  this  matter?  This  the  argument  touches  not. 

His  next  argument  is  drawn  from  the  confeiTion  ofieveral  di- 
vines. With  this  he  begins  his  fifteenth  chapter,  and  frequent- 
ly Ipeaks  of  it.  But  this  favs  no  more  for  him,  than  other,  and 
perhaps  more  confiderable  teOimonies,  do  againO  him.  Befides, 
fmce  he  has  not  condeicended  on  the  perfons  who  fall  in  with 
him  here,  nor  their  words,  we  murt  "^  leave  them  ,*  as  we  are 
not  concerned  in  them,  nor  obliged  to  follow  them  further, 
than  thev  do  the  truth. 

But  that  which  he  lavs  the  mod  flrefs  on,  is  the  fuppofed  evi- 
dence of  the  thing*.  This  he  frequently  infifts  on,  as  to  all  his 
articles;  and  its  force  amounts  to  this — It  is  fo  clear  that  there  is 
one  only  Suprenie  Beings  and  that  the  fun  nor  no  other  is  he,  that 
it  could  not  efcape  the  m.oit  dull  and  unthinking. 

But  here  our  author  puts  me  in  mind  of  the  companions  of 
Chriftopher  Columbus,  whofirft  difcovered  Am-erica,  about  the 
year  i  ^,92  ;  thev  were  one  day  at  table  with  him,  and  began  to 
depreciate  and  undervalue  the  diifcovery  he  had  made,  telling 
him  how  eafily  others  might  have  done  it.  Well,  fays  he,  I 
hold  you  a  wager,  I  do  what  none  of  you  IhaU  do,  and  prefent- 
ly  calling  for  an  egg,  fays  he,  none  of  you  can  make  that 
eg^  ftand  flralght  on  the  table  ;  which  when  they  had  effayed 
to  no  purpofe,  he  tikes  it,  and  crufhes  the  end  of  it  a  little, 
and  then  it  flood  eafily  ;  which,  when  they  all  faid  it  was  eafy 
to  do  :  Well,  fays  he,  it  is  very  true,  ye  can  do  it  after  1  have 
done  it.  It  is  ealy  to  fee  things  after  they  are  difcovered  to 
our  hand,  whi-h  we  would  otherwife  never  have  thought  of. 
Ail  the  world  was  not  fo  difcerning  asour  author  was,  and  his 
followers  pretended  to  be,  and  he  has  given  us  fufficient  proof 
of  that  in  his  book,  and  I  truly  wonder  with  what  face  any  man 
could  make  ufe  of  this  argument  after  he  had  read,  much  more 
after  he  had  u^rit  fuch  a  book,  wherein  it  is  made  clear  as  the 
day,  that  many  nations  believed  no  other  God  but  the  fun, 
moon  and  flars,  as  we  Ihall  lliew  afterwards.  And  1  mud  take 
the  freedom  to  fay,  that  our  ndble  and  learned  author,  with  the 
reft  of  the  Deiiis,  and  all  the  philoiophers,  who  lived  fince  the 
o-ofoel  obtained  in  the  world,  owe  more  to  tlie  Chriftian  religion, 
than  they  have   the    ingenuity   to   own.     What  they  think    fo 

clear 

*  De'Tvclig.  Gent,  pag,  1S2,  i65. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      287 

clear,  when  revelaiion  has  not  only  taught  them  the  truths,  but 
the  grounds  of  them.vvas  dark  not  only  to  the  vulgar,  but  to  the 
wifellof  old.  I  cannot  better  conclude  this,  than  by  tranfcribing 
a  pailage  of  the  ingenious  Mr.  Lock's  EJay  on  Human  Under- 
ftanding — "  Had  you  or  1, (fays  he,  fpeaking  2,ho\Minnatt:  ideas) 
*'  been  born  at  the  bay  of  Seldania,  pofTibly  our  thoughts  and  no- 
**  tionshad  not  exceeded  thefe  brutiili  ones  of  the  Hotentots  that 
**  mhabit   there  ;    and  had    the  Virginian   king,   Apochancana 
**  been  educated  in  England,  he  had,   perhaps,  been  as  know- 
**  ing  a  divine,  and  as  good  a  mathematician  as  any  in  it.     The 
**  difference  between  him   and   a   more  improved  Englilhman, 
**  lying  barely  in   this,  that  the   exercife   of  his  faculties  was 
**  bounded  within  the  ways,  and  modes  and  notions  of  his  own 
**  country,    and   was  never   directed  to  any  other  or  farther  in- 
*'   quiries  :   And  if    he  had  not  any  idea  of  a  God  as  we  have, 
•*   it  was  only  becaufe  he  purfued  not  thofe  thoughts,  that  would 
**  certainly  have  led    him    to    it."     Thus    far  Mr.  Lock.      If 
fome  men  had  been  born  where   the  gofpel  light  has  not  come, 
they  would  have  learned  to  talk  more  foberly  of  iht  fufficiency 
qi  the  light  of  nature. 

The  only  thing  that  remains  fcr  him  to  prove  as  to  this  firft 
article  is.  That  this  One  Supreme  God,  whom  he  thinks  the 
Gentiles  all  centered  in,  was  the  jfame  God  with  him.  whom  \vq 
worfhip.  For  this  he  refers  us  to  three  fcriptures — Rom  i.  19. 
A6fs  X.  throughout,  and  A6^s  xvii.  28,  6cc. 

Our  author  has  not  drawn  any  argument  from  thofe  pafTages, 
but  barely  refers  to  them.  He  was  particularly  unlucky  in 
quoting  the  laft  of  them  :  For  it  obliged  him  to  take  notice  of 
an  argument  arifing  obviouily  from  the  paffage,  againR  the  pur- 
pofe  he  adduced  it  for  the  proof  of ;  and  indeed  that  paffage  af- 
fords feveral  arguments  againil;  our  author's  opinion  in  this  mat- 
ter, which  are  not  eafy  to  be  folved,  if  they  who  follow  him, 
were  to  be  determined  by  fcripture  arguments.  But  our  noble 
author  has  fcarce  fairly  laid  the  objediion,  which  he  ftarted  X» 
himfelf  from  the  altar  to  the  unknown  God.  But  tofpeak  home  to 
the  purpofe — -There  are  only  two  things  that  can  be  drawn  from 
thefe  or  the  like  paffages.  I.  That  fome  of  the  Gentiles  knew 
the  true  God.  2.  That  all  of  them  had  fom.e  notions  of  truth 
concerning  God,  or  which  were  only  rightly  applicable  to  the 
trus  God*  The  actings  of  confcience  within,  and  the  works  of 
God  without  them,  enforced  on  them  the  impreffion  of  feme 
Power,  fuperior  to  themfelves,  on  which   they  depended;  ard 

this 


288  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE        chap.  xiv. 

this  was  indeed  a  notion  of  truth  concerning  God  ;  for  this  xv^is 
only  juftly  applicable  to  the  true  God  :  But  yet  they,  through 
their  darknefs  and  wickednefs,  when  they  came  to  inquire  n7ore 
particularly  after  the  true  God,  applied  thefe  notions  to  crea- 
tures, and  took  them  for  this  true  God. 

Now  this  is  indeed  all,  befides  bare  and  repeated  aflertions, 
that  1  can  find  in  our  author,  to  prove  that  his  firft  article  ob- 
tained univerfally  :  And  how  far  it  is  from  proving  this,  is  evi- 
dent from  what  has  been  faid. 

ARTICLE       II. 

T/iis  One  Supreme  Gcd  is  to  be  worjhipped* 

THE  fecond  article  our  author  has  not  attempted  a  fufiici- 
ent,  nay  nor  any  feparatc  proof  of:  Wherefore  we  go  onto 
the  next. 

ARTICLE       III. 

That  Virtue  and  Piety  are  the  principal  parts   of  the  zvorfkip  of 
this  one  true  God* 

THIS  he  alfo  pretends  to  have  univerfally  obtained,  and  that 
the  Gentiles  expe£led  not  Heaven  for  their  worlhip,  or  their 
iacred  performances,  but  for  their  7«(?ra/  worfhip,  that  is,  their 
\irtues.  To  prove  this,  is  the  defign  of  our  author's  15th  chap- 
ter, at  Icaft  till  pag.  195. 

The  firft  thing  he  infills  on  to  this  purpofe  is,  the  high  rel- 
pe6>  which  the  Heathens  put  on  thole  things,  while  they  ranked, 
/nens,  ratio,  pittas,  fides,  pudicitia,  [pes  ^vA  jclicitas\ ,  aniongft 
ilic  number  of  their  gods,  and  ercdted  temples  to  tliem.  '1  his 
lie  proves  at  large.  But  what  all  this  makes  to  his  purpoic, 
1  am  not  yet  fatisfied. 

This  indeed  proves  that  they  had  a  refpeCt  to  all  thofe  thing/. 
V^cj-y  true,  io  they  had,  and  thai  becaule  of  their  ufefulncis  in 
huinan  foclety.  Yea  this  proves  that  they  had  an  undue  relpucl 
to  them,  fo  as  to  perform  ads  of  worihip  to  them.  But  that 
they  defigned  to  worfhip  God  by  thoi'e  virtues,  which  ihey 
would  not  allow  they  had  from  him,  as  we  Ihall  hear  altei  wards, 

is 

*  Mind,  Reafon,  Pietj,  Faith,  Hope,  and  Happi»efs. 


PRINCL^LES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-       289 

IS  not  fo  eafily  proven.  Befides,  this  was  cniy  at  Rome  that 
thefe  altars  were  ered^ed,  and  fo  is  far  from  concluding  as  to  the 
red  of  the  world,  where  virtue,  hope,  (&c.  had  no  fuch  temples. 
The  next  thing  our  author  mentions  for  proof  of  the  univer- 
fal  reception  of  this  article,  is  the  cujlom  of  the  Heathens  in  dei- 
Jying  their  heroes  on  account  of  their  virtues  and  piety.  But 
our  author  knew  too  much  of  the  Gentiles'  religion  to  believe 
that  this  proves  any  more,  than  the  fulfome  flattery  of  the  blind- 
ed world  that  deified  even  devils,  and,  as  our  author  elfewhere 
well  obferves,  men  that  were  no  better  than  devils  ;  or  if  there 
was  any  more  in  this  cudom,  when  at  firft  invented,  it  was  only 
fome  ill  applied  piece  of  gratitude  to  perfons,  who  had  been 
their  benefa6\ors,  or  the  henefa6iors  of  mankind.  And  all  this 
refpeC^,  that  was  put  on  them,  v/as  not  hecaufe  their  virtues  re- 
fktSied  any  glory  on  God,  but  becaufe  they  had  been  ufeful  to 
men.  Befides,  religion  was  old  in  the  world  before  this  novel 
Grecian  invention  took  place.  As  the  Roman  poet  and  fatyriil 
obferved, 

— nee  turha  decrum 


Talisy  ut  eji  hodie-,  conteiitaqize  fydera  paucis 
NuminibuSi  mijerum  urgeharit  Atlanta  minore 
PiuJere,* 

Nor  did  this  univerfally  obtain.  So  that  the  argument  con- 
cludes juft  nothing.  It  neither  proves  that  all  the  world  were 
agreed  tliat  virtue  and  piety  are  the  principal  parts  of  the  wor- 
fhip  of  God,  nor  that  on  acccnnt  of  thefe,  men  get  eternal  hap- 
pinefs.  What  their  in:mortality  was,  of  which  they  talked, 
we  may  fee  under  the  fifth  article. 

Some  few  quotations  from  Cicero,  Seneca,  Plato,  and  one  or 
two  more  compofe  our  authr^r's  laH  argument.  Seneca  fpeaking 
fbmewhere  of  Scipio  Aflricanus  fays,  **  Animam  quidem  ejus 
**  in  ccelum,  ex  quoerat,  rediffe  perfuadeo,  non  quod  magnos 
**  exercitus  duxit  (hos  enim  Cambyfes  furiofus,  &  furore  felici- 
**  ter  ufus  habuit)  ied  ob  egregiam  moderationem,  pietatemque. 
**  Cicero  Lib,  de  Offic.  Deos  piacatos  facit  pietas  &  fanctitas.'* 
And   elfewhere  he  fays,    **  Nee  eft  ulla  erga  decs  plctas,  niii 

N  n  **  honeda 

*  "  Nor^was  there  fuch  a  mnldtude  of  gods,  as  there  is  now,  nnd 
"  the  iUrs  being  content  with  a  fe;v  deities,  preiTcd  the  poor  Atlas 
«  -vvith  kfi.  wei<rht." 


250  AN     INQ^UIRY     INTO     THE     chap.  xiv. 

**  honcfta  de  niimine  eorum  ac  mente  opinio  :  Qiium  cxpeti  ni- 
**  hil  ab  iisquod  fit  injuftuin,  ac  in  honeAuni  arbitrere  *"  Some 
others  he  adduces  from  Plato  and  others,  wherein  they  fay,  that 
happinefsand  likenefs  to  God  arc  obtained  by  virtue. 

But  to  what  purpofe  are  all  thele  brought  ?  I.  There  is  word 
here  of  gods,  and  their  worfhip  ar.d  piety  as  refpc»S\ing  ihem  ; 
i)ut  not  one  word  of  the  One  trueGcd,  of  whom  aionc  we 
fpeak.  2,  It  is  certain  that  this  piety  and  fan(ftity  accoiding  to 
thofe  authors,  comprehended  the  worfliip  of  their  gods,  as  our 
author  exprefly  confcfies,  ^^  Atque  ad  pietatem  confu}n:natu?}]  plu- 
**  rima  infuper  [thM  is,  befides  virtue  of  which  he  fpeaks  before) 
**  po/iulan  aiehanf,  fedea  prefertini  qw!  grati  infuperos  animi 
**  indicia  etTent,  puta  /acrificia,  ritu  &  ctranonas  &  kujufmo' 
**  di  alia  quorum  Jar r ago  ingensjuit :  C  teriim  fine  prxdiBis 
**  divis  five  deabus,  am  mam  regentibui,  aditiim  in  ccshim  non 
**  dari.Y'  This  lall  put  is  only  our  author's  fay,  and  is  not  re- 
ccncileable  with  what  he  tells  us  of  their  drifting  fomi-,  who 
we  e  fo  far  from  being  gods,  that  tliey  were,  fays  he,  Ne  viri 
qiizdcm  probi.X  3-  As  for  wliat  Cicero  fays,  •' Thit  for  virtue 
and  piety  v>  e  are  advanced  to  heaven  ;"  I  do  not  know  weil  how 
to  reconcile  it  with  what  he  fays  elfcvvhere  in  his  book  de  Ami- 
ciiia^  "  Vult  plane  virtus  honorem  :  nee  virtiitii  efi  ulla  alia  mer- 
cesT  otherwife  than  by  thinking  that  by  heaven,  (his  ccclmUf) 
lie  meant,  that  which  many  of  them  meant  by  their  immortality^ 
that  is,  an  -immortal  fame,  a  good  reputation  after  they  are 
gone,  asTiongft  the  furvivers.     As   for  Seneca,  Chriftianily  had 

taught 

*  De  Re!i?.  Grnti).  pa^.  187 — "Tarn  perfuaded  that  his  foul  re- 
'*  turnrd  to  thar  heaven  fro;n  whence  it  came,  not  bt^caufe  he  had  great 
<*  armies  (for  Cambyfis  who  was  a  madiran,  and  fortunare  \-\  his  madnefs, 
"  had  thefe  too)  but  on  account  of  his  rcinsrkable  moderation  and  pi- 

<*  ery Piety  and    hoiincfs   appeafe    the    gods Nor  is 

"  there  anv  piety  towards  the  gods,  except  an  honourable  o^nnion  of 
"  their  deity  and  mind,  '.-rhen  one  thinks  that  nothing  unjull  and  dif- 
"  honourable  ihouid  ue  aiked  of  them/' 

+  Ibid.  pav>:.  185. — «  And  thev  faid,  that  many  other  things  befides 
<■<  were  requifuc  in  order  to  conlHtute  '^erfeft  piety,  but  efpccialiy  fuch 
<<  things  as-viere  iiidlcarions  of  a  mind  gratef'.il  to  the  gods,  viz.  fjcri- 
*'  lices,  rites,  and  csrcmonie'^,  and  ether  thinps  of  t!»'.s  fort,  of  which 
<<  there  w-as  a  g'-eat  number,  but  that  there  was  no  acccfs  to  heaven 
««  without  the  aibrefaid  gods  and  goJilelies,  who  directed  the  foal." 

\  ibid,  pag.   195. — "  Not  even  good  men,'' 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       291 

taught  him  a  little  more,  and  his  teftimony  is  not  much  to  be 
regarded.  4.  Were  there  twenty  ir.oie  of  them,  they  never 
come  near  tea  proof  of  the  point:  it  is  the  fentiments  of  the 
world  that  we  are  inquiring  after,  and  not  what  were  the  thoughts 
of  fome  of  the  more  improved  philoiophers.  The  queliion  is 
not,  Whether  men  by  the  light  of  nature  faw  an  excellency  in  vir- 
tue, and  that  it  was  to  be  followed  ?  but, Whether  they  looked  on 
It  as  a  part,  a  principal  part  of  the  worfliip,  not  of  their  deities, 
but  of  ;he  one  true  God ;  and  that  for  which  heaven,  not  that 
imaginary  heaven  which  men  had  at  their  difpofal  ;  but  an  eter-^ 
nity  of  hap  pine f s  tn  communion  with  God,  is  to  be  obtained? 
Now  our  author  advances  nothing  to  prove  this  point. 


ARTICLE       IV. 

JVe  miijL  repent  when  zoe  do  amy's* 

A  S  to  this  article  our  author  confefTes  fevcral  things,  which 
it  will  be  m.eet  to  notice  in  the  entry,  i.  He  owns  that  the 
ancients,  the  wifer  fort  of  them,  thought  not  repentance  a  fufH- 
cient  atonement  for  the  grolTer  fort  of  (ins;*  and  quctesCicero, 
faying,  Expiatio  fcelerufu  in  homines  nulla  ejl,\  Where  Gcd 
was  offended  they  iought  fan<Siuary  in  repentance,  and  thought 
it  fufficient,  but  not  where  men  were  wronged.  *'  C^teruin  licit 
"  in  remedium  peccati^  ubi Dei  fummi  majejias  L'dereiur,  paniten' 
'*  tiam  five  dolor  em  efficacem  e[Je  crederent :  Nsn  itatamenvbi  ho' 
**  mines  injuria  vel  contiimelilii  afficerentur,  de  pcenitentia  ilia 
*'  ftatuebant  Gentiles-t"  2.  He  con feiTes  that  they  thought  not, 
**  Repentance  alone  a  fulTicient  atonement.!!"  He  tells  us,  that 
they  had  Expiationes  lujirationcjque,  fine  quibus  neque  ctimine 
neque  poena  folutos  femetipfos  arbitrahantur .  Again,  3.  He 
confefTes  that  the  word  repentance,  or  penitence,  was  rarely  ufed 
among  the  ancients,  in  that  fenfe  we  ufe  it.  *'  Neque  mihi  dubi^ 

"  iim 

*  De  Rel.  Gent,  pag,   197. 

+  Cicero  de  Leg.  Lib.  i. — "  There  is  no  expiation  of  crimes 
"  agaijjft  men." 

X  De  Rcl.  Gent.  pag.  198. — "  But  although  they  thcjght  that  pen. 
«  itencc  or  foriovv  was  an  efFtrcluai  mean  of  taking  away  iinj 
*<  whereby  the  majcUy  of  the  Supreme  God  was  injured,  yet  they  had 
«  not  the  fame  opinion  of  penitence,  in  rrgard  to  thofe  fms  whereby 
"  men  v/rre  injured  and  infuhcd." 

II  Ibid.  pag.   1 9 J. 


'02  AN   INQ^UIRY   INTO  THE      chap, 


XIV, 


"  um  ^uin  eorum  (fal,  ptccatorum)  panituerit  Gentiles,  guc 
*'  fot  mala,  accercerunt ;  licet  ranus  quidem  pmmtentic  verbum 
*'  inter  aiaores,  ec  quo  jam  ufarpatur  ftnfi  reperiutur,**'  Since 
then  he  makes  all  thefe  concelTions,  there  remains  no  more  lave 
this,  that  he  pretends  ail  the  **  world  were  agreed  upon  rapen- 
**  tance,  as  that  which  was  of  uiz  to  expiate,  M  lead,  iome  lef- 
"  ler  faults  committed  againft  God,  and  that  we  Ihould,  when 
"  we  (in,  be  grieved  for  it."     < 

To  prove  this,  he  quotes  feme  pafiages  from  Ovid,  Seneca 
and  fome  others.  The  only  confiderable  teftimony  is  from  Peri- 
ander,  who  was  one  of  the  feven  Mafe  men  of  Greece  :  One  of 
whofe  fentences,  he  f-ws  it  was  AV^pr^v  UiraQoKiva^  Te  mail 
pamteaf,  ubi  peccaveris,  Seneca  fays.  Quern  pccniiet  peccojfe 
pene  eji  innocens.     And  Ovid, 

Scepe  le-oam  pcenr.Sy  ereptaque  Iu7r,i7ta  redduvt 
'^t7n  bene  pecccti  pcenitnfjj'e  -videsj; 

But  all  thefe  are  alleged  to  no  purpofe.  They  do  not  prove 
ilxdl  repentance  vras  looked  on  as  an  expiation  by  (he  Gentiles. 
Ovid  and  Seneca  lived  too  late  in  the  world,  and  had  too  great 
accefs  (o  learn  from  others,  to  be  nf^ucb  regarded  in  this  matter; 
hut  they  only  fpeak  their  own  mind,  and  we  have  here  no  argu- 
ment of  the  agreement  of  the  world  as  to  any  thingaboutrepen- 
tanq^.  'i  he  opinions  of  the  wife  are  no  jull  rneafurc  of  the 
knowledge  or  apnrehenfions  of  the  vulgar. 

But  that  whereon  our  author  feerns  to  lay  more  (Irefs,  is  their 
facrinces,  which  he  pretends  are  an  evidence  of  their  grief  for 
fin,  or  repentance.^  Ouo?yum  enim  mfi  intern o  dolore  perciti,  tot 
ritusfacraque  ad  d'eos  placandos  excogitaffentX  -^ 

But,  I.  if  the  Gentiles  had  been  as  much  agreed  about  re- 
pentance as  our  author  pretend?;,  they  would  indeed  have  fpa- 
red  all  this  pains  and  coll.  2.  Tliey  were  indeed  grieved,  but  this 
grief  they  did  not  willingly  entertain,  nor  allow  themfelves   in 

as 

*  De  Rel.  Gent.  pag.  198.--''  Nor  is  h  a  doubt  with  ire  that  the 
"  Gentiles  n^pented  of  thofe  crimes  which  brought  fo  many  evils  upon 
<<  them,  although  the  word  repen(ance,  in  that  fenfe  in  which  it  is  now 
"  ufed  feldom  occurs  in  their  authors." 

+  «  You  fee  tliat  he  who  duly  repents  of  his  otTence  often  alJevi- 
«  ares  his  puniihment,  and  reilores  his  lofilig'jt." 

t  ^*  For  to  what  purpofe,  unlefs  they  had  l;ficn  prompted  by  inward 
*«  iforrov/,  would  tl-ey  have  contrived  fo  many  rites  and  faciifices  ior 
*<  appeafmor  the  gods :" 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       293 

as   their  duty;  but  looked  upon  it  as  their  termcnt,  and  fought 
landuary  in   means    proper  for  appe^fing  their    gods,  as  they 
thou^:ht.     3.  This  grief,  which   facrifices  prove   them  to    have 
had,  is  no  more  but"  that  uneafy  fenfe  of  fin  in  the  confcience, 
which  is  a   part  of  its  punilhment,  and    no    duty  performed  for 
their  delivera/ice  ;  and  this  forced  them  upon  all  ways  that  they 
could  imagine  to   get  rid  of  it  ;  fo  that  facrifices  were  what  they 
betook  themlelves  to,  to  fave  themielves,  or  procure  a  deliver- 
ance   from    our   author's    peniiencc     4«  Further,   our    auihor, 
when  it  is  for  his  purpofe,  can  put  another  conftruaion  on  their 
facrifices  ;  while  we  have  heard  above,  he  makes  them  only  ab- 
furd  enough  teftimonies  of  gratitude  to  the  gods,  and  to  have  no 
refneft  to  fin  at  all.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  fcmetimes  they  were 
in  this  way  ufed  ;   fo  Pythagoras  is  faid  to  have  ufed  them  when 
he  oiTered   hecatombe  to  the  gods,  for  a  propofition  w  hich   he 
found  out  ;   but  for  ordinary  they   were   defigned  as  expiatory. 
r.   Do   their   facrifices,   which   they  ottered    to  fo   many   gods, 
prove  that  they  were  troubled  for  offending   the  one  true  God  ? 
\  believe  not.     Ay,  but   this  was  what  our  author  fl^ouid  have 
proved.     6.   Docs  our  author  tell  us  that  they  were  fo  little  a- 
greed  about  this  purgative,  that  no  lefs  a  perfon  than  Plato  dif- 
cardcd  repentance,  and  put  philofophy  inits  room, as  that  where- 
by only  v/e  could  be  purged  ?  And  this  leads  me  to  a  7th  thing, 
that  fhev;s  of  hov/  little    lignification    this   preterided    proof  is, 
That  it  is  known  that  the  moredifcerning  philoiophers  m.^de  moft  ? 
light  of  thofe  facrifices,  yea,  of  fm,  and    conlequently   of  our 
author's  catholic  remedy,  repentance.     As  to    the  fufficiency  of 
rep  ntance  for  the  place  he  aingns  it,  we  have  fpoken   to  it  a-, 
bove.     Our  author,  I  think,  has  badly  proven  that   rt  univer- 
fallv  obtained.      And   indeed   had    there  been   as  m.uch  weight 
laid  on  it  as  is  pretended,  we  could  not  have  mifTed  a  more  large 
account  of  it  in  the  writings  of  the  Gentiles.    Further,   8.  Our 
author  pretends,  that  repentance  is  of  no  avail,  as  to  the  groljer 
evils,  but  only  waQies  away  lcff<r  fins,  and    we  fear  our  auti.or 
would    find    fome   difficulty  tc   provq  that  generally  the    Gen- 
tiles were  fo  concerned  for  leffer  fins,  as  he  pretends.     9.   Had 
they  been  fov/ell  agreed,  as  he  pretends,  about  repentance,  and 
had  this  been  the  defign  of  their  facrifices,  1  do  not  well  un- 
derffand  why  our  author  fliould  make   fuch   oppofiticn  betwixt 
facrifices  and   repentance,  as   elfewhere   he    does;  when  he  is 
fpeaking  of  feveral  faults  of  the  Heathen  priefts,  he  fubjcins— 
**  Scd&  hoc  pejus,  quod  quum  ex  vera  venule,  vd  June  uhi  ex- 

**  ciicrint 


294  AN    INCLUIRY   INTO   THE       chap.  xiv. 

"  ciderint  ex  panitentia  vera,  pactm  internam  comparare  debw 
iffent,  adritus^  facra,  qu£  ipjij SciL  Sacer dotes )  peragerent 
**  res  perduBa  efi,  &€.  *"     Here  it  would  feem  plain,  that  the 
people  came  at  length,  If  not  of  their  own  accord,  yet   by  the 
perluafion   of   prierts,  to    overlook   repentance,  and   reje^   if, 
iubftituting  other  things  in  its  room  ;  and    when  once  this  ob- 
tained in  one  generation,  it  is  like  it  might  Ipread  and    obtain 
in  after  ages,  being  tranfmitted    from   father    to    fon,  and    the 
prieOs  carrying  on    the  cheat  ;  and  fo  at  leaft  the   v/orld  in  all 
ages  hath  not  made  any  account  of  repentance  as  the  only  ex- 
piation.^    Again,  it  would  feem  from  our  author,  that  facrifices 
did  not  import,  and  were  not  evidences  of  repentance  ,  but  on 
the  contrary,  means  invented  to  make  people  negleft  it.f    I  do 
not  well  underHandhow  they,  who,  if  we  may  believe  our  author, 
were  all  fo  fully  agreed   about  repentance,  and   were  fo  prone 
and  inclined  to   it,  that  their   minds  run  into  it  without  any, 
perfuafion,  fnould  need  fo  much  the  prielh'  perfuafion,  and  be 
eafily  drawn  off  from  what  they  accounted  fo  available.      Let  us 
hear  our  author.     Speaking  of  man's   recovery  from    fin.   fays 
he,    **   Atque  inflauratione7n  hanc  fieri  dcbere    ex    panitentia, 
**  docuere  tu?nphilo/ophi,  turn  facer  dotes,  ita  ut  hanc  a  gen  dam 
**  animamque  purificandum,  fed  non  fne  eorum  minifleno,  ft" 
''^  plus  inculcarent.     Bent   quidem  fi  pcrnitentiam  fatis  populo 
perfuafjjent,  quod  neutiquam  tamen  ab  illis  fa&um  fuit ;  licet 
adeo  prona  in  earn  fit  anima  liumana,  ut  etiam  nuUo  fuadente^ 
in  foTO  interna  ex  gratia  diviiia,  confcientlfque  didamine  de- 
**  cernatur,X'     Our  author  tells  us,  that  the  people's  facrilices 
were  an  argument  of  their  repentance,  as  we  heard  above,  and 
that  the  prielis  perfuadcd    them  to    it,  and  that  they  were    all 

agreed 

*  Do  Rel.  Gent.  pa^.  lo — «  But  this  too  is  worfe,  that  when  they 

"  ought  to  have  fought  hnvard  peace  by  true  virtue,  or  when  they  had 

'^  fallen  from  it,  by  true  penitence,  the  matter  was  reduced  to  rites  and 

'•'  iacrifices  performed  by  the  priefts." 

%   Ibid.  pag.   107. 

■f  «  And  both  'the  philofophers  and  the  priefts  taught  that^this  rc- 
«'  covcry  mull  be  brouohc  about  by  repentance,  fo  that  they  often  in- 
'*  culcared  that  this  ought  to  be  done  and  the  foul  purified,  but  not 
•'  ^^i;h  ;Ut  their  miniltry.  It  would  have  been  well  indeed  if  they  had 
"  fjflicienily  pcrfuaded  the  people  to  penitence,  which  however  was 
'*  not  done  by  them,  although  the  human  mind  is  io  prone  to  it,  that 
"  even  without  any  adviler  it  is  determined  in  the  inward  court  by  the 
»•  diviiic  grace  and  the  didatc  of  confciencc." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       295 

agreed,  that  repentance  was  the  only  atonement,  and  that  the 
mind  of  man  needs  no  admonilher  to  peri'uade  it  to  repentance; 
and  yet  he  tells  us  likewiTe  in  the  palTages  adduced,  That 
repentance  was  quite  laid  by,  facrificcs  and  rites  put  in  its 
place,  the  people  lb  ignorant  of  the  worth- of  it  as  to  let  it  go, 
and  fo  backward  as  not  to  look  after  it,  uniefs  the  priefts  had 
preffed  it  more,  (and  yet  we  are  told  they  inculcated  it  oft)  and 
in  fine,  the  prieUs  fo  negligent  that  they  quite  neglciSled  tbeir  du- 
ty. How  to  knit  all  this  together  I  know  not.  I  do  think  it  were 
eafier  to  make  thefe  words  overthrow  our  author's  argument, 
than  to  reconcile  them  with  themfelves,  with  truth,  reafon,  or 
experience  ;  but  I  fparc  refle61ions  that  offer  themfehes.  Be- 
fore our  author,  or  the  Deifts,  make  any  thing  of  this  argument, 
they  muft  prove,  **  That  facrifices  univerfally  obtained — That 
facrifices  were  every  where  ofTered  to  the  One  True  GOD-— 
That  thofe  facrifices  were  fymbolical  of  repentance,"  as  ano- 
ther Deift  has  it,  and  fcveral  other  things  taken  notice  of  a- 
.bove. 


ARTICLE       V. 

That  there  arc  rewards  and  punijlimaiis  after  this  life* 

WE  are  now  come  to  cur  author's  laft  article, 
very  conftant  in  exprefiBng  himfelf  about  this  article,  and  how 
far  it  was  agreed  to.  Sometim:;s  he  pretends,  that  thefe  rewards 
v<!CYC  eternal  happinefs J  and  that  this  v.as  agreed  ;  fometimes  on- 
ly it  was  agreed  that  there  were  rewards  and  punifhments  after 
this  life  ;  and  fometimes  he  words  it  yet  mere  modefiiy ,  that  they 
expe&ed  rewards  and  punilbments,  either  in  this  lijey  or  ajter 
it.  So  pag.  2OC5,  when  he  enters  exprefly  to  treat  of  this  arti- 
cle, Et  quidem  premium  bonis  i3  fupplicium  malis^  (N.  B.J  vet 
in  hac  vita,  vel  pojl  hanc  vitum  dan,  Jlatuekant  Gentiles*.'' 

And  indeed  when  he  cotnes  to  tell  us  how  far  is  determina- 
ble in  this  matter  by  the  light  of  nature,  he  makes  this  article 
of  very  little  fignification.  "  Non  imperite  quidem,  bonos 
**  bona,  males  mala,  vel  in  eternum  manere  affirmabant  vete- 
*'  res.     At    quis   locum    prasmii,   vel    pcenas  oflenderit  ?  Qjns 

*'   fupplicii 

*  "  And  indeed  the  Heathens  we«*e  of  opinion,  that  there  would  be 
"  a  reward  to  the  good,  and  a  puniihrnent  to  the  wicked,  either  in  thit 
«  life  or  after  this  life." 


296  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE        CHAP.xr;. 

**  rupplicli  genus  conje£^2vbrlt?"  (And  the  fame  U  perfe<ft]y  the 
cale  :js  to  rewards,  though  our  author  waves  that,  for  uhat 
caufe  it  is  not  hard  to  conjecture.)  **  Qj»'s  tandem  durationis 
"   tertninurn  pofuerit  *  i'* 

All  that  he  pret^^nds  to  have  heen  received,  was  barely  this, 
'*  7'hat  there  are  rewards  a. id  puniil.medts  after  this  life."  Let 
us  hear  himself,  **  Et  quidem  pra^ter  folennem  illann  notitiam 
**  communem,  nempe,  deiim  bonum  juftumq  ;  effe,  adeoq  ; 
*'  pEseadum  vel  pccnam  tum  in  hac  vita,  turn  pofl  banc  vitam, 
**  pro  aftionibus,  imo  &  cogitationibus  fuis  unicuique  rt^metiri, 
**  nihil  quod  verifimile  magis  effet  ab  iilis  ftatui  pofle  decerni- 
*'  mus  f."  But  he  teiis  us,  that  by  the  additions  they  made  to 
this,  and  proceeding  to  determine  further  than  they  knew,  even 
this  came  to  be  ca'led  in  queftion,  (w'lich,  bv  the  way,  ruins 
our  author's  caufe  as  to  this  article)  but  let  himfelf  fpeak, 
**  Dutn  haec  philorophl,  ilia  faceidotes,  alia  demum  pocta: 
'^  sdjicerent,  tota  inclinata  in  cafumq  ;  prona  nutavit  veritatis 
*'  fabrica.  Si  femet  fatis  coercuiflent  Gentilium  coriph^ei,  ne- 
*'   minem,  puto,  dilTentientcm  habiwircnt.:): 

He  aiTerts  very  little,  we  fee,  to  have  univ.erfally  obtained  as 
to  this  article,  and  he  Teems  to  do  more  than  iniinuate,  that  even, 
as  to  this  littUi  at  leall,  in  procefs  of  time  there  were  fome,  and 
even  not  a  icw  diilenters:  For  I  know  not  v/hat  meaning  elfe 
to  put  upon  the  *'  whole  fabric  of  truth  nodding,''  and  "  inclin- 
ing to  fall :"  And  this  is  to  quit  the  caufe.  We  fliall  however 
notice  his  arguments,  but  the  more  (hortiy,  becaufe  of  what  has 
been  already  cbferved. 

Firft, 

*  Dc  E-clig.  Gent.  pso;.  2  ro. — *•'  The  ancients  indeed  not  unikil fully 
*<  afHrm-^d  that  good  things  awaited  the  good,  and  evil  the  wicked, 
"  even  for  ever.  But  v/ho  could  fnow  the  place  cl:  reward  or  pim- 
♦«  ilhment  ?  Who  could  guefs  die  kind  cf  puniihrnent  ?  .  .  .  Who 
"  at  hfr  can  fix  the  term  of  their  duration  ?" 

+  "  And  indeed  bolides  that  foletim  common  notice,  that  there  is  a 
*<  God  who  is  good  and  juR,  and  confeqaenilv  will  reward  and  piiniHi 
**  every  one,  I'Oth  in  this  life  and  afi^r  this  life,  according  to  his  ac- 
"  ticns,  and  even  to  his  thoughts,  we  ihink  that  nothing  inore  pio- 
"  b>Tbie  could  he  deterrnint'd  by  rheiii." 

:{'^  While  t\\Q  philofophers  added  fome  things,  the  priefls  others, 
"  and  the  poets  others  further,  the  u-hoie  fabric  of  truth  was  ruiiied 
<f  and  fell  to  the  ground.  .  If  the  leaders  of  the  Heathens  could  have 
f«  reilralned  themfcivcs,  I  think  that  they  would  have  had  nobody 
'»  di'tcriof?    from  rhem." 


Principles  of  tke  modern  deists.      297 

Firft  then,  he  pretends,  that  the  perfuafion  o(  ihis  \s  in naie*, 
that  the  reaions  of  it  are  To  obvious,  and  the  arguir.ents  heading 
to  it  are  lb  evident,  that  they  could  not  but  agree  as  to  this.f 

But  I  have  already  ihown,  that  every  thing  that  is  evident,  or 
was  (o  to  our  author  and  his  companions  and  followers,  was  not 
fo  to  the  ancient  fages.  I  guefs  that  he  learned  moft  of  thcfe  ar- 
guments he  infiiis  on  from  fome  others  than  the  Heathen  phiiof- 
ophers,  or  if  they  managed  them  (o  well,  he  would  have  done 
right  to  hav£  pointed  us  to  the  places  where  they  have  done  fo» 
But  when  he  has  done  this  it  will  nat  prove  an  univtrfal  cori' 
Jent:  For  we  are  concerned  in  fome  others  befides  philofophers. 
As  for  what  he  ptetends  of  this  perfuafion's  being  innate,  I  think 
he  has  faid  much  to  diiprove  it  himfeif;  or  if  it  be,  I  think  the  pre- 
fages  of  future  mifery  in  the  mind  of  man,  have  been  much  more 
firong  than  of  happinels.  And  in  a  word,  he  only  fays  it  was  in- 
nate, but  does  not  prove  it.  Yea,  if  this  did  not  univerfally  ob- 
tain, according  to  our  author's  own  do6\ritie,  it  was  not  innate. 

Next  he  infifls  on  the  cuflom  of  deifying  heroes,  and  placing 
them  among  the  number  of  the  immortal  gods.  This  he  hints 
at  frequently.  But  this  did  not  univerfaily  obtain  as  to  time  or 
place,  and  fo  hit  not  the  point  in  theleaf^-  All  were  not  fo  dig- 
nified, nay,  not  all  that  were  good  ;  nor  does  it  prove,  that  even 
all  that  people,  among  whom  ihiscuilom  prevailed,  were  of  r,  :it 
opinion;  but  only  the  perfons  principally  concerned.  And  in- 
deed it  were  eafy  to  (liew  that  they  were  not  all  of  this  opinion, 
which  may  polTibly  be  made  appear  in  the  next  chapter. 

His  next  argument  is  deduced  from  a  {^\\  teOimonies  of  poets 
and  philofophers  averting  a  future  flate,  which  he  has  fcattered 
up  and  down,  here  and  there.  But  what  is  this  to  all  the  world  ? 
Do  the  poets'  fancies  of  Ely fian  fields ,  Styx  and  the  like,  give  us 
the  true  meafure  of  the  fentiments  of  the  world  ? 

Thus  I  have  viewed  our  author's  proofs  of  his  five  articles, 
and  their  reception  in  the  world.  I  have  not  knowingly  omitted 
any  thing  of  moment,  advanced  by  him  for  his  opinion.  I  (liall 
conclude  this  chapter  with  a  few  general  reflections  on  our  au- 
thor's ccndu6l  in  this  atTalr. 

I  do  not  a  little  fufpect  a  writer  of  controverfy,  when  he  hud' 
dies  up,  and  endeavours  to  conceal  the  Hate  of  the  qaeilion,  and 
fhifts  it  upon  occafion.     It  is  alv/ays  a  fign  either  that   his  judg- 

O  o  raent 

*     D2  R.e^.  Gent.  pag.  211.         +  ibid.  pag.  4, 


298  AN   INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE       chap.  xiv. 

ment  is  naught,  or  that  his  defigns  a-e  not  fair  and  Qood.  I  do 
not  believe  that  our  nolle  aulhor's  abilities  required  any  fuch 
njean  (liifts,  if  the  badnefs  of  the  caufe  he  unhappily  undertook, 
had  not  obliged  him  :  Bat  that  this  ia  the  courfe  he  fteers,  is  evi- 
dent. Now  he  feems  to  undertake  tD  (hew  us,  what  the  oioit 
univerfal  apprehenfions  of  men  were  in  matters  oi  religion  ;  and 
anon,  he  pretends  to  tell  us  what  the  more  diicerning  perfona,  a- 
mong  the  Heathens  thought;  and  thusfnifts  the  fcene,  as  it  is  for 
his  piirpofe. 

It  is  further  remarkable,  that  our  aut'ior  has  crammed  in  a 
great  deal  of  philofophical  learning,  which  makes  nothing  at 
all  to  the  main  purpofe  of  the  book.  He  has  writ  a  book  of 
230  pages  to  prove  that  thefe  five  articles  obtained  :  whereas 
all  the  arguments  he  adduces,  fcarce  take  up  ten  of  them.  The 
refi  is  acoTle6\ionof  hillorical  and  philological  learning  about  the 
Heathen  gods  and  woriliip.  He  only  drops  here  and  there  the 
ihadow  of  an  argument;  and  then  when  we  are  fome  pages  by 
it,  he  tells  us  he  has  dern'onftrated  this  already,  and  we  ar«  re- 
ferred back  to  fome  of  the  preceeding  arguments  ;  and  that  is, 
we  are  bid  fear ch  for  a  needle  among fl  a  heap  of  hay*  This  looks 
exceeding  fufpicious  like.* 

Again,  i  do  not  like  frequent  and  repeated  aflfertions  in  a  dif-r 
p  t»  nt  without  arguments.  Fewer  aifertions  and  more  argU' 
m;:nts,  if  the  caufe  had  permitted,  v/ould  liave  done  better.  If 
is  faid.that  fome  by  tcUinga  lie  often  over,  come  at  length  to  be- 
lieve it  to  be  t!ue.  1  am  apt  to  think  that  the  oft  alTerting  over 
and  over  again  what  he  undertakes  to  prove,  might  go  further 
toward  his  ov/n  conviction,  than  all  the  arguments  that  he  has 
advanced. 

Our  author  undertakes  to  give  us  an  account  what  the  Plea- 
th.^n's  thoughts  as  to  thofe  articles  were,  and  what  led  them  to 
thefe  apprehenfions;  but  after  all,  you  ihall  find  nothing  but  an 
account  of  fome  o-"  their  pra6iices,with  our  author's  glolTes  put  oa 
them,  and  the  reafon  that,  not  they,  but  he  thinks  mav  be  al« 
Icged  in  juiliiication  of  their  pravSlices  and  opinions.  If  he  had 
dealt  fairly  he  would  have  told  us  in  their  own  words,  what 
their  fcntiments  were,  and  likewife,  what  were  their  induce- 
ments that  led  them  into  thofe  opinions:  but  to  obtrude,  as  e- 
vcry  where  he  doth,  his  conjeilures  and  drained  interpretations, 
as  their  meaning,  is  perfei'^iv  intolerable. 

It 

*  Read  the  conc'ufion  of  our  author's  8.  C:;p,  pag.  54.  r.nd  com- 
pare it  with  the  Cap, 


PRI>XIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS,       299 

It  is  indeed  true,  thnt  our  author  affords  us  feveral  quctat*onr. 
from  the   Heathens;   but  doth  he,  by  this  means,  give  us  a  fair 
reprefentation  of  the  point   in  controverfy,  and  their  fentirrjects 
about  it?  No.  If  his  reader  is  fo  fitnple  as  to  take  this  for  gran- 
ted, he  deceives  himfelf.  I  know  it  is  the  cuftom  of  feme  others, 
as  well  as  our  author,  though  perhaps  on  better  defigns,  to  quote 
fome  paffages  from  Heathen   authors,  in  order  to  (hew  their  a- 
greenient   with.  Chnftianity,    and   to  what   a  length   the  mere 
light  of  nature  brought   them  ;  but  hereby  they  do  deceive  the 
reader  :   So  Cicero's  teitimony  to  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  is 
alleged  by  our  author,  pag.   192,  *^  Qu€??iadmocfu?n  igitur  haut 
**   alius  Deus,  haut  alia  virtus,  ab  GentilibuSy  quam  ah  nojtris, 
**   011771  cdehratUTy  ita  certe  communis  utriuJquefpesimmGrtalha" 
**  tis  fuit>     Diftrtim    Cicero   2  de.  Leg,   ait,  animi   hominitm 
*'  Junt  immortaUs  :  Sed  fortiu?n  bonorum  divini  &  alibi  iii  Lib* 
*'   de  SeneBute  att :  Nan   eji  lugenda  mors,  quum  immortalitas 
*'  confequitiir*"   Now  if  any  body  Ihould  think   that  this   tefti- 
inony  of  Cicero  gives  a  full  account  of  his  apprehenfions   about 
immortality,  they  would  be    very  far  deceived  ;   For  in  his  firft 
book  of  lufculan  Quejbons,  wh.ere  he  difculTes  this  point  ex  pro- 
fejfo,  he  diicovers  indeed  an  inclination  to  believe  it,  and  a  de- 
fire  that  it  may  be  true  ;   yet  fuch  a   hefitation  about   it,  that  he 
knows  not  how  to  perfuade  himfelf  of  it,  as  we  fhall  (liew  per- 
haps in  the  next  chapter.     In  like  manner  Plato  is  cited  by  him, 
and  many  others  to  the  fame    purpofe  :      But  what  a  fad    uncer- 
tainty both   Socrates  and  Plato  were  in  about  this  point,  I  (hall 
fully  demonflrate  in  the  next  chapter.     I  {hall  here   fet  down 
only  one  notable   inHance  of  the  unfairnefs  of  this  v.'ay  of  pro- 
cedure.    Our  author  quotes  Solon's  teftiir.ony  iox  Juturt  Jdici- 
ty,  p2g«    IQ4'   Let  us  hear  our  author's  ov/n  words,  "  Fulchram 
**   diJlinBionem  inter  felicem  Jive  jcrtvnattm  ^  beatum  ajfert  ex 
*'  Solo?is  Herodotus  Lib   i.  Vbi  Crccfo  refpondens,  ait  neminem 
**  dignum  ejfe  qui  vocetur  htatus  antequam  r£>.si;rr,<7si  rov  E;o»  sv  hoc 
**  €ft,  vitavijuamhtne  cluvjerit ;  adeoquezoroyj^fivejortunatmn 

'*  hac 

*  "  As  therefore  there  was  no  other  God;  nor  any  other  virtue  for- 
<'  merly  celebrated  among  the  Gentiles  than  by  our  writers,  fo  fiir«=ly 
*'  both  of  them  had  a  common  hope  of  immortality  ;  for  Cicero  fays 
«  exprcfsly,  2d  de  Legibus,  that  the  fools  of  men  are  immortal,  and 
"  thofe  of  the  brave  and  good  are  divine:  and  elfeuhere  in  his  book  oa 
"  Old  Age  he  fays,  that^death  v-hich  immedistely  follows,  is  not  ta 
"  be  mj'rned  for.'* 


ooo  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE       chap.  xiv. 

**  hac  in  vita,  nequaquam  ''C7f^r.v  five  heatum  ante  ohitum  ejus  ho* 
"   milium  appellan  pojfe.     Huic  concinit  Ovidius, 

Diciq  ;  heatus 
Ante  ohitum  nemo,   fupremaque  funera,  debet, 

**  Proprie  quippe  loquendo,  nemo  keatus  ante  mortem:  Ita  ut 
**  beaii  infer  Gentiles  vocarentur,  quiin  Ely/iis  campis  Jempiterno 
**  dvojiuerentiir**' 

No^v  here  we  have  a  proof  to  the  full  of  our  author's  con- 
d  Jit  in  his  quotations,  and  the  improvement  of  them.  Was 
not  Solon  clear  that  there  was  a  Hate  of  happincfs  after  this  life? 
Who  can  doubt  it,  after  our  author  has  thus  proved  it  ?  But 
what  if  Solon  for  ail  this,  confined  happlnefs  to  this  life,  de- 
fining the  happy  man,  *'  One  who  is  competently  furnifhed 
**  with  outwa-d  things,  a6l5  honeflly,  and  lives  temperately f;'* 
which  definition  no  kfs  a  perfon  than  Ariilotle  approves.  And 
in  all  Solon's  fpeech  to  Crefus,  there  is  not  one  word,  if  it 
were  not  difingenuoufly  or  ignorantly  quoted,  that  gives  us  the 
leaft  oround  to  believe  that  So'on  once  fo  much  as  dreamed  of 
kappinefs  after  this  life.  Stanley  in  his  Life  of  Solon  recites 
from  Herodotes  this  whole  fpeech,  and  the  ftory  to  which  it 
relates  t.  Crefu.  king  of  Lydia  in  Afia  the  Lefs,  fends  for 
Solon  upon  the  (aix^c  of  his  v/ildom.  Solon  comes.  The  vain 
king,  dazzled  with  the  lufire  of  his  own  greatnefs,  alked  the 
wile  So'.on,  Whether  ever  he  faw  any  man  happier  than  him- 
felf,  who  was  poiTeired  of  fo  great  riches  and  power?  Solon 
named  feverals,  particularly  Tellus  the  Athenian  citizen,  Cleobis 
and  Bito,  two  brothers  ;  the  Oory  of  whom  he  relates  to  Crefus, 
and  gives  the  reaions  why  he  looked  on  them  as  happy,  without 
ever  a  hint  of  their  enjoying  any  happinefs  after  this  life.     At 

which 

*  i<  Herodotus  from  Solon  quotes  a  fine  didiniflion  betwixt  a  lucky 

«  or  fortunate  and  a  happy  man,  in  his  firil  book,  when  bolon  anfwer^ 

<«^  in.;  Crefus,  fays  that  nobody  tkferves  to  be  called  happy,  till  he  has 

<*  ended  his  life  well,  and  confequently  that  although  a  man  may  be 

"  called  lucky  or  fortunate  in  this  life,  but  that  he  ought  not  to  be  cal- 

<f  led  happv  before  his  death.  A.nd  Ovid  agrees  with  him,  *'  Nor  ought 

"  any  to  be  called  happy  before  his  death,  and  the  lall  ceremony  of 

«  his  funeral."    For  properly  fpeaklng  none  is  Happy  before  his  death* 

«  So  that  thofe  were  eail^d  happy  among  the  Gentiles  who  enjoyed  an 

«»  eternal  lite  in  the  Elydan  fields." 

f  Stanley's  Life  of  S  -Ion,  pag.  26.         J  Ibid.  pag.   28,  29. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      301 

which  Crefus  was  angry,  thinking  himfelf  undervalued  ; 
whereupon  Solon  thus  addrciTes  him — "Do  you  inquire,  Crefus, 
"  concerning  human  affairs  of  me,  who  know,  that  divine 
^^  providence  is  fevere,  and  full  of  alteration  ?  In  procefs  of 
*'  time,  we  fee  many  things  \ve  would  not  ;  we  futTer  many 
'^  things  we  would  not.  Let  us  propofe  feventy  years  as  the 
'^  term  of  man's  life,  which  years  confift  of  25200  days,  be 
'^  fides  the  additional  month  ;  if  we  make  one  year  longer  than 
'^  another  by  that  month,  to  make  the  time  accord,  the  additional 
"  months  belonging  to  thofe  years  will  be  thirty-five,  and  the 
*^  days  1050, — whereof  one  is  not  in  all  things  like  another.  So 
'^  that  every  man,  O  Crefus,  is  miferable  !  You  appear  tome 
'*  very  rich,  and  is  king  over  many  ;  but  thequeOion  you  de- 
^*  mand  1  cannot  refolve,  until  I  heard  you  have  ended  your  days 
^'  happily  ;  he  that  hath  much  wealth  is  not  happier  than  he 
'-  who  gets  his  living  from  day  to  day,  unlefs  fortune  continuing 
^'  all  thofe  good  things  to  him,  grant  that  he  die  well.  There 
^'  are  many  men  very  rich,  yet  unfortunate;  many  of  mode- 
"  rate  eftales,  fortunate  ;  of  whom  he  who  abounds  in  wealth, 
<<  and  is  not  happy,  exceeds  the  fortunate  only  in  two  things, 
<i  the  other  him  in  many  ;  the  rich  is  more  able  to  fatisfy  his 
<<  defires,  and  to  overcome  great  injuries  ;  yet  the  fortunate 
i'  excels  him.  He  cannot  indeed  inflict  hurt  on  others,  and  fa- 
ii  tisfy  his  own  defires;  his  good  fortune  debars  him  of  thofe  : 
But  he  is  free  from  evils,  healthful,  happy  in  his  children, 
a  and  beautiful  ;  if  to  this,  a  man  dies  well,  that  is,  he  whom 
you  feek,  who  deferves  to  be  called  happy  ;  before  death 
he  cannot  be  ftiied  happy,  but  fortunate  ;  yet  for  one  man 
to  obtain  all  this  is  impofiible,  as  one  country  cannot  fur- 
niih  itfelf  with  all  things  :  Some  it  hath,  others  it  wants; 
that  which  hath  moft  is  beft,  fo  in  men  not  one  is  perfe6t  ; 
a  what  one  hath  the  other  wants.  He  who  hath  confiantly 
ti  moft,  and  at  laft  quietly  departs  this  life,  in  my  opinion,  O 
ti  king,  deferves  to  bear  that  name.  In  every  thing  we  mu'a 
'•  have  regard  to  the  end,  whither  it  tends  ;  for  many  to  whom 
«^  God  difpenfeth  all  good  fortunes,  he  at  lafi  utterly  fubverts." 
Thus  we  fee  the  whole  paffage,  in  which  it  is  evident  that  So- 
lon meant  only,  thaftomake  a  man  happy,  it  is  requifite  he 
continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  competency  till  death,  and  that 
then  he  die  well,  that  is,  quietly  and  in  good  refpecl  or  credit 
with  men.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  dywg  zoell  according 
to  Solon,  is  not  only  evident  from  the    firain  of  the   difcourie, 

but 


302  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE        chap,  xiv, 

but  from  the  Ooiiesof  Tellus,  Cleobis  and  Blto,  v.'bom  he   in- 
rtances  as  bapvv  men,  becaufe  of  their  creditable  deaths.     The 
firft  he  tfils  us   died    in   defence   of  his  country,  after   he  had 
put  his  eneniies  to  flight,  **   he  died   nobly,  and  the  Athenians 
buried   him  in  the   place  where    he   fell,  with  much   honour." 
The  two  brothers,  Cleobis  and  Bito,  drev/  their  mother's  chariot 
forty-five    Oadia,  and    with   the.  Rrefs   died    next    morning  in 
the  temple,  and   (o  died  honourably*     And  any  that  will  rive 
himfelf  the  trouble  to  read  Ovid's  flory  of  Adeon,  in  his  third 
book  of  his  Metamorph.  wiU    fee   it  clear  as   the  day,  that   hs 
meant    ju(\  the  fame,     tie    reprefents   how    happy  one    might 
have    thought  Cadmus,  confidcring  how   many   things  he  had 
that  were  defirable  in  his  lot,  a   kingdom,  relations,  and  chil- 
dren, had  not  Adeon  his   grand -child's  fate  interrupted   the  fe- 
ries  of  his  joys,  and  made  him  iniferable.     Whereupon  the  po- 
et concludes,  **   Till  de^th  a    man  cannot  be  called    happy  ;" 
that  is,  till  a  man  has  without  interruption,  enjoyed   a  trac^  of 
profperity,  and  dies  creditably,  without  any  mixture  of  ill  for- 
tune. 


n 


yam  fiahatit  Thehce :  Poteras  jam  Cadmet  'vidc 
Exilio  felix :  Sorceri  tihi  Marfave  I' enujque 
Contigerant :   Hue  adde  geuus  de  covjuge  tonta^ 
^fot  jiaioSi  natafque,   ^  pignsra  cava  iie.potes. 
Has  quoquc  jmn  jwvt'fres  :  Jed Jcilicet  ultima  Jemper 
ExpeSanda  dies  homini  ejli  dicique  beatus 
Ante  obi  turn  nemo,  fupremaque  funera  debet. 
Prima  ncpos  inter  res  *ot  fibi  Cadmcy  fecundas 
CaujA  fuit  Juciusy   l^Sc,  * 

And  thus  he    proceeds  to  tell    the   ftory   of  Actcon's   being 
transformed  into  a  hart.     Thus   we   fee  with  v/hat  candor  our 
author  quotes  the  Heathens.      Here  he  has  firft  broke  offforne 
words  from  their  context,  whereby  the  unwary  reader  is  temp- 
ted 

*  Ovid.  Metamorph.  Lib.  3. — <«  And  now  Thebes  was  built ;  nowr 
"  O  Cadmus,  you  might  feem  to  be  happy  in  your  banilhment.  Mar*, 
**  and  Venus  was  your  father  and  mother  in  law;  add  to  this,  a  race 
*<  from  fo  iUuilrious  m  confort,  fa  many  fons  and  daughters,  atul  grand- 
*«  children,  dear  pledges,  r.nd  thefe  too  alrca-ly  y oaths ;  bin  truly  a 
"  man  mart  ahvays  look  for  his  tall  day,  and  nobody  can  be  called 
"  happy  before  his  death,  andlart  funeral  rites.  Amidlt  io  uiuch  prof- 
**  perity,  O  Cadmus,  agrar.dfon  was  the  iir'l  caufe  of  moiirning  to  you." 


PRikClPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       303 

ted  to  believe,  that  the  fpeaker  meant  quite  another  thing  than 
really  he  did  ;  and  then  obtrudes  this  falle  fenfc  of  one  or  two 
trien's  words.,  who  were  wiie  rnen,  and  in  their  thoughts  tar  a- 
bove  the  vuigar,  as  the  harnionious  meaning  of  the  Gentile 
world. 

Nor  do  I  think  it  O.range  that  our  author  (nculd  ferve  us  fo, 
feeing  he  was  prepofleired  in  favour  of  the  Heathen's  religion  be- 
fore he  began  to  read  their  books.  For  he  tells  us  in  the  entry 
of  his  book,  the  very  firPi  fenlence  of  it,  and  more  fully  in  the 
reft  of  the  nrfi  chapter,  Thar  he  was  at  once  very  concerned 
for  the  divme  provtdtnce,  and  withal  fully  convinced  that  it 
could  not  not  be  maintained  wiihout  there  were  a  religion  com- 
mon  to  all  men  j  or,  as  his  words  formerly  quoted  by  us  ex- 
prefs  it,  *'  Uniefs  every  man  was  provided  with  tlie  means  that 
**  were  needful  for  attaining  future  happinefs  ;"  io  he  went  to 
the  books  of  the  Heathens  under  a  perfuafion  that  there  was  a 
common  religion  there,  could  he  be  fo  lucky  as  to  light  on  it, 
and  therefore  no  doubt  he  drew  and  ftrainecj  tilings  to  his  pur- 
pofe,  both  rites  and  words.  Thus  he  begins  his  difccurfe  about 
expiation  :  **  Qi.iofdam  Gentiiium  ritus,  qui  in  fenfum  fani- 
♦•  orem  trahi  poQunt,  jam  traaaturus*,"  &c.  And  indeed  he 
draws  them  to  a  fouader  j'enfe  than  ever  they  put  or.  then?. 
But,  after  all,  forced  prayers  are  not  good  for  the  fouU  f^ays 
the  Scots  proverb.  And  from  one  thus  prepoil'cired,  v/e  can 
expe<it,no  fair  account  of  the  Gentile's  fentiments. 

Which,  by  the  way,  gives  me  occafion  to  remark,  that  if 
any  one  deHres  to  underftand  the  mind  of  the  Heathen  philofo- 
phers  and  fages,  they  fnould  read  them  themfelves,  or  Heathen's 
accounts  of  their  lives  and  ad^ions,  rather  than  thcfe  done  by 
Chriltians  ;  becaufe  very  often  when  Chrlftians  write  their  lives, 
they  have  fome  deiign,  and  they  ftrain  everything  in  the  phi- 
lofophers  to  a  compliance  either  with  their  defigns  or  appre- 
henfions.  The  Heathen  writers  being  under  no  influence  from 
the  fcripture  light,  do  plainly  narrate  things  as  they  are,  (not 
being  fo  fenhbie  of  what  .things  may  refle6l  really  upon  the 
perfons  concerning  whom  they  write  ;  the  light  of  nature  not 
reprefenting  clearly  that  wickednefs  v.'hlch  is  in  many  of  their 
actions  and  opinions)  and  fcrupls  not  to   tell  them  out  plainly  : 

whereas 

*  De  Rel.  Gent.  pag.   igr, — «  Being  now  about  to  treat  of  fome 
*'  rites  of  tht^  iieathens,  v/hich  may  be  drawn  irito  a  found  fcrsie." 


^04  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE        chap,  xiv, 

whereas  Chriftlans,  being  aware  how  odious  fuch  and  fuch 
pra6"^ices  or  principles  are,  dare  fcarce  tell  fuch  things  of  thofe 
famous  men,  as  they  were  really  guilty  of;  becaufe  they  know 
how  deep  a  flain  it  u-ill  leave  on  them,  by  thofe  who  are  taught 
the  evil  of  them  by  the  fcriptures. 

I  (hall  jdd  this  reflection  more  :  If  any  one  would  conclude 
from  our  author's  confidence  in  fome  places  of  his  book,  where 
he  talks  of  many  reafons  that  he  has  advanced,  and  that  he  has 
demonftrated  this  and  that  ;  if,  I  fay,  from  this  they  would  in- 
fer, that  he  was  fully  perfuaded  in  his  own  mind,  about  thefe 
five  articles f  that  they  univerfally  obtained,  and  are  fuffiaent, 
he  would  very  far  miRake  our  author,  who,  throughout  his 
book,  fufficiently  betrays  his  uncertainty  about  them,  and  that 
he  wanted  not  cijcar  lefi  it  fhould  not  be  true,  as  fome  things 
afterwards  to  be  pleaded  will  (how.  But  leafi;  this  fhould  feem 
to  be  faid  altogether  u'ithout  ground,  I  (hall  fingle  out  one  in- 
Oance  of  cur  author's  wavering  in  this  matter,  referving  others 
Id  another  occafion.  It  is  pag.  19,  where,  after  our  author  has 
difcourfed  of  the  more  f avion s  names  of  the  true  God,  and  fliew- 
cd  that  the  Gentiles  applied  them  all,  fave  one,  to  the  fun,  he 
concludes  thus,  **  Haec  faJtem  fuere  folenniora  fummi  Dei  no- 
*'  mina  inter  Hebiseos  extantia,  quae  etiam  ad  folem,  Sabazio 
*'  excepto,  a  Gentilibus  redu6la  fuilTe,  ex  fupra-allatis  conjec- 
"  turam  facere  licet.  Adeo  ut  quamvis  fuperius  fole  numen 
**  fub  hifce  praecertim  vocabulis  colucrunt  Hebrsei,  folem  ne- 
**  quealiud  numen  intellexerunt  Gentiles,  nifi  fortade  in  fole, 
**  tanquem  prseclaro  Dei  fummi  fpecimme,  &  fenfibili  ejus, 
**  ut  Plato  vocat,  fimulacro,  Deum  fummum  ab  illis  cultum 
''  fuiile  cenfeas  :  Q^aod  non  facile  abnuerim,  prasfertim 
**  cum   fymbolica  fuerit   omnis  fere   religio   veteram  *."      But 

perhaps 

*  De  Re!.  Gent,  pag,  19. — «  Thofe  at  leaft  were  the  morefolemn 
"  names  of  the  Suproir.e  God,  that  we  find  among  the  Hebrews ;  all 
*«  which  except  Sabazino,  wc  may  conjeiTiure  irom  what  has  been  qno- 
*^  ted  above,  was  .-applied  by  the  GentileS  to  the  fan.  So  that  akhough 
«<•  the  Hebrews  woriliipped  a  delry  fnperior  to  the  fun,  efpecially  un- 
**  der  thofe  names,  yet  :he  Gentiles  underilood  by  them  the  lun,  and 
«'  no  other  deity,  unlefs  perhaps  in  the  fan,  as  an  illuflrious  reprefen- 
f<  tation  and  fenfible  image,  of  the  Supreme  God,  as  Plato  calls  him, 
"  under  which  figure  ws  may  fuppofe  that  the  Supreme  God  was  wor- 
«  fiiipped  by  them.  Which  I  wouii  not  eafily  contradi^i  efpecially 
^'  asulniollall  the  religion  of  :he  aacients  was  (ymbQiical." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       305 

perhaps  though  our  author  was  not  well  confirmed  in  his  opini- 
on, when  he  began  his  book,  yet  he  came  to  fome  more  fixed- 
ncfs  before  he  got  to  the  end  of  it.  Well,  let  us  hear  him,  in 
his  cenfure  of  the  Gentile's  religion  in  the  laft  chapter  of  his 
book,  where  fpeaking  of  the  worlhipping  the  heavens,  the 
fun,  &c.  he  gives  his  judgment  thus:  "  De  hoc  quidem  dog- 
*'  mate,  idem  ac  de  priore  cenfeo :  Nempc,  nifi  fymboHcus 
**  fuerit,  erroneum  mihi  prorfus  videri  cultum  ilium.  Csete- 
**  rum  quod  fymbolici  fuerunt  olum  hujufmodi  cultus,  multae, 
*'  quas  fupra  adduximus»  fuadere  videntur  rationes  :  Sed  fuo- 
**  judicio  hcic  quoque  utatur  le6^or  *.'*  What  more  uncer- 
tainty could  any  betray,  than  our  author  doth  in  thefe  words  ? 
And  indeed  here  we  have  enough  to  overthrow  his  whole  book: 
for  if  this  firft  article  fall  all  will  fall  with  it,  as  we  may  fee  af- 
terwards. 

But  it  is  now  time  that  we  draw  to  a  conclufion  of  this  chap- 
cr,  having    fufficiently  enervated    our  author's  arguments,  fo 
far  as  we  could    difcern    them.     If  any   of  them  feem  to  be  o- 
mitted,  I  prefume  they  will  be  found  to  be  of  no  great  confider- 
ation,  and  of  an  eafy  difpatch   to  any  that  is  acquainted   with 
this  controverfy.      Oar  author's  way  of  writing  made  it   fome- 
what  difiicult  to  find   his  arguments.     And  indeed  upon  ferious 
refle<S^ion,  I  can  fcarce  undetftand  at  what  our  author  aimed  in 
this  way   of   writing.     He   could  never  rationally  expe6l   that 
this  would  clear  the  fubjeCl  he  had  undertaken.     1   had  almoft 
concluded    that    his    defipn  behooved  to  be  an   oftcntation  of 
knowledge  of  the  Heathen's  religion,  in  order  to  make  his  au- 
thority have  the  more  weight,  and  to  fcare  people  from  enter- 
taining a  different  opinion  concerning  the  religion  of  the  Hea- 
then  world,    from   that  which    one  who  had  fo  induftrioufly 
fearched   into  their  writinss,  owned.     But  if  tl  is  was   it,  our 
author  has  miffed  it.     And  I  think  inftead  of  doing  the  Deifts' 
caufe  any  fervice  this  way,  he  has  rather    hurt    it :   for  every 
one  that  (liall    perufe  this  work   with  attention,  and  find  how 

P  p  great 

^  De  Rciig-  Gent.  pag.  223. — "  Concerning  this  dodlrine  indeed, 
"  r  am  of  the  fame  opinion  as  concerning  the  former,  to  wit,  that 
«*  unlefs  that  worlhip  was  fymbclical,  it  feems  to  me  to  have  been 
<*  quite  erroner.us.  But  the  many  reafons  which  we  Iiave  addu- 
«<  ced  above,  feem  to  perfuadc  us  to  believe  that  worfhip  ot  this  kind 
«  of  old  was  fymbolicaJ.  But  let  th«  reader  nfc  his  own  judgment  in 
<*  this  cafe  likewife," 


3o6  AN   INQ^UIRY    INTO  THE        €Hap.xv. 

great  our  autlior's  learning,  diligence  and  induOry  have  been, 
and  yet  how  little  he  has  been  able  to  do,  they  will  infer  the 
weaknefs  of  the  caufe  he  has  undertaken,  and  conclude,  that 
the  caufe  could  bear  no  better  defence,  and  that  therefore  a 
weak  and  indefencible  caufe  has  baffled  our  author's  great  a- 
bilities  and  application.     For 

Ji  Perganm  dextra 

Dcftndi  pcJUenti  etiam  hac  deftfija  fuijfeni,* 

C»  Blount  and  they  who  have  come  after  our  author,  as  has 
been  faid  before,  do  but  copy  after  him,  and  take  his  notions 
upon  truil,  but  others  v/ill  be  fomewhat  more  wife,  and  will 
look  whom  Joey  tiull  in  a  matter  of  this  importance. 


Wherein  it  is  ir.ade  cpptar  that  Herbert's  Five  Articles  did  not 
univerfally  obtain, 

'T  X  7E  have  in  the  preceding  chapter  fufEciertly  fhewed  how^ 
^  ^  weak  our  noble  author's  proofs  are  of  his  univerfal  re" 
tigion-  It  now  remains  that  we  prove  that  what  he  pretends  is 
indeed  falfe.  Our  work  here  is  far  more  eafy,  than  what  our 
author  undertook.  He  affeits  that  providence  cannot  be  main- 
tained, unlefs  all  mankind  are  provided  in  the  means  needful 
for  attaining  future  happinefs,  and  he  is  likewife  clear,  that 
iefs  cannot  be  allowed  fufiicient  for  this  tnd  than  the  five  arti- 
cles mentioned,  wherefore  he  pretends  that  all  the  world  agreed 
in  owning  thefe.  Now  to  have  made  this  lail  appear,  it  was 
needful  it  ftiould  be  proven  by  induaion  of  all  particular  na- 
tions, that  they  thus  agreed,  and  that  as  to  all  times;  but  this 
would  have  been  fomewhat  too  laborious.  We  maintain  that 
all  did  not  agree  in  the  acknowledgment  of  thofe  five  articles  ; 
And  this  is  evinced,  if  we  can  (lievv  onlv  one  nation  diifeniing 
from  any  one  of  them.  But  we  Hiall  not  be  fo  nice  upon  the 
point,  as  only  to  njention  one  nation^  or  difprove  one  article' 
Let  us  take  a  ieparate  view  of  each  article,  and  fee  what  the 
judgment  of  fome  nations  were  concerning  them. 

ARTICLE 

*  « If  Troy  could  have  been  defended  by  any  right  hand>  it 

"  would  have  been  defended  by  this  one." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       307 


ARTICLE       I. 

All  the  World  did  not  ag-^e  in  owning  the  One    True  Supreinc 

God. 

I  MIGHT  for  proof  of  this,  only  defire  any  perfon  to  read 
our  author's  book,  and  (here  he  woaidfind  this  fuiHciently  clear. 
But  I  ftiall  fhortly  co  itirm  it  to  the  convittion  of  any,  who  has 
not  a  mind  to  Qiut  his  eyes,  by  the  fe\\'  following  obiervations 
as   to  the  fentiments  of  the  world  in  this  cafe. 

I.  It  is  moft  evident  to  anv  one,  who  will  give  himfelf  the 
trouble  to  read  never  fo  littleofthe  writings  of  the  Gentiles,  that 
many  nations,  I  had  alnrroft  faid  moft  nations,  did  hold  a  plu- 
rality of  eternal  and  independent  beings^  on  whom  they  depen- 
ded, and  which  they  caied  gods  in  the  propereft  fenfe  of  the 
word.  Herodotus  qucied  by  our  author  tells  us,  **  That  ail 
"  the  Africans  woriliip  the  lun  and  moon  only"—**  Soli  & 
**  lunae  folummodo  facrilicint,  &  quidem  Afri  univerfi  *." 
And  Plato  quoted  iikewife  by  our  author,  a  itw  pages  after,  in 
his  dialogue,  which  he  calls  Cratylus,  tells  us,  **  Qpi  Grseciam 
**  primi  incoluere,  ii  videntur  mihi  illos  i  lum  dcos  exiitiiuaiie, 
**  quos  nunc  eliam  barbjri  mJti,  pro  diis  habent,  foiem,  lu- 
**  nam,  terrnm,  aftra,  cceiumt'"  Of  this  alto  the  ancient 
infcriptions  mentioned  by  our  authorij:,  and  more  parcicularly  by 
Hornbeck  in  his  treatife  de  Converjione  Gentilium,  is  a  proof. — 
*'  Soli  invi6\o  h  lunae  aet^.n^ae  deo  foli  invic^o  Mythvae  <5e;  om- 
•*  nipotenti  deo  MythrseH  "  Mythras  M^as  a  name  given  to  the 
fun  by  the  Perfians,  as  our  author  proves.  And  if  we  may  be- 
lieve Maimonides,  the  Sabeans  owned  no  God  fave  the  Oars. 
*•  Notum  ert  Abrahamum  patrcm  noRrum  educatuin  eile  in  fide 
**  Sab2eorum,  qui  ftatueruiit  nullum  elTe  Dcum,  prater  fleilas§- 

Nor 

*  De  Kt\,  Gent.  pag.   36. 

•k  Ibid.  pag.  39. — "  Thofe  who  firft  inhabited  Greece,  appear  to 
<*  me  to  have  thought  that  thefe  alone  were  gods,  which  many  barba- 
'*  rians  (iill  hold  to  be  god?,  to  wit,  the  fun,  the  moon,  the  tari^, 
<»  the  ftars,  the  heaven." 

X  Ibid,  pag    26.  Ij   Hornbeck,  pag.  19. 

§  More  Nevochim,  rcf-:rente.  Hornbec  ubi  fupra.  pag.  17. — "It 
'<  is  well  known  that  our  father  Abraham  was  educated  in  tlie  faith  of 
'^   the  t^abe::ns,  who  thought  that  there  was  no  God  except  the  itars.'* 


3o8  AN    INQ^UIRY  5INTO    THE.      chap.  xv. 

Nor  were  the  Egyptians  of  another  mind.  Diodorus's  teftiirony 
is  worth  our  notice  to  this  purpoie, — '*  Igitur  piinii  iili  liomires 
*'  olim  in  JE^ypio  ^eniti,  hinc  mundi  ornatum  conipicientes, 
**  admirantelque  univcrforum  naturam,  daos  cfie  deos,  &c  tos 
**  aelernos  arbitratri  lunt,  folem  &Junann:  Et  ilium  quidem 
**  Ofiridem,  hanc  Ifidim  certa  nominis  raticne  appellarunt  *." 

Thus  we  fee  what  the  apprehenfions  of  feveral  nations  were, 
and  how  harmonious  they  are  in  dilTenting  from  our  author's 
affertion.  It  had  been  eafy  to  have  alleged  many  more  teili- 
monies  even  from  our  author  againft  himfeif :  But  we  aim  at 
brevity. 

2.  It  is  not  improbable,  that  fome  nations,  though  they  might 
allow  fome  prioiity  of  one  of  their  gods  to  the  retl  yet  did  not 
think  that  there  was  any  fuch  great  inequality,  at  leaf!  amongft 
their  more  notable  deities,  as  could  infer  the  fupremacy  of  one 
to  the  reft,  and  their  dependence  on,  and  iubcrdination  to  him. 
We  find  every  where  equal  honours  paid,  equal  or  very  little 
ditierent  titles  of  refpf-dt  given  to  the  fuo  or  moon-  So  that  it 
is  very  likely,  though  they  might  give  the  fun  the  preference  in 
point  of  orde-,  yet  they  did  not  apprehend  anv  luch  great  ine- 
quality, as  feems  needful  betwixt  one  fupreme  being  and  his 
dependents*  The  people  of  Mexico  in  America,  though  they 
woriiiip  many  gods,  yet  look  on  their  two  principal  ones,  whom 
they  call  Vitzilopuckili  and  TezLdttipuca^  as  two  brothers. 
**  Mexicani  pnmo  coUre  fohti  fuerunt  immanem  deorum  turham^ 
**  bis  milk refe runty  inter  quos  duo prcipui  Vitzilopuchth  &  Tez- 
**  cah'ipuca  duo  fratre^y  quorum  abnir  rerum  providtnti^^  alter 
**  hellis  pr.  erat\.'*  And  the  inhabitants  of  Darien,  St,  Martha 
and  other  places  thereabout,  own  only  the  fun,  and  the  moon 
as  his  wife.     Furlher,  it  is  owned  by  our  author   feveral  times, 

that 

*  Owen  Theolog.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  5.  Herbert  pag.  39. — *' Therefc^re 
"  thofe  firft  men  rhat  wc^re  produced  in- Egypt,  obferving  from  thence 
*'  the  beauty  of  the  world,  and  admir'ng  rhe  nature  ot  the  univerfe, 
"  concluded  that  there  were  twog  ds,  the  fun  and  the  moon,  and 
*'  they  called  the  one  Oiiri,  and  tl]e  other  ifis,  giving  certain  reafons 
**  for  thofe  names." 

+  Hornbeck,  pag.  70. — "  The  Mexicans  at  firft  ufed  to  worfhip  an 
**  imnicnfe  nuint.er  of  gods,  to  wit,  two  thoufand,  the  chief  among 
"  which  were  Vitzilop'JchtH  and  Tezcarlipnca,  two  brothers,  the  on« 
*«  of  whom  had  the  care  of  the  world,  and  the  other  prcfidcd  over 
«  wars." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       309 

that  many  nations  hold  two  flrft  bdngs,  one  good  and  another 
£vitt  whom  they  called  Ve-JupiteTy  and  by    the   Perfian  Magi 
he  was  ca  led  ArimaniuS'     Though  our  author  thinks  a  fofter 
conftrudion  is  to  be  put  on  their  meaning,  than  to  charge  them 
wish  uiakii  g  their  Ve- Jupiter  equal   with  the  good  God*:   But 
we  know  our  author  mult  not  be  allowed  to  interpret,  unlefs  he 
can  give  good  g'ounds  for  his  opinion  about  the  meaning  of  the 
Geniiie-s,  which  in  this  cafe  he  doth  not  once  attempt,  and  we 
know  that  fome   looked  on  this  wicked  principle  as  ihc  fupreme, 
as  we  fhall  '.how  aeon  ;  and  1  think  it  will  be  hard  to  clear  fomc 
of  them,  yea  even  no  lefs  a  perfon  than  Plutarch,  from  making 
theni  equal  and  both   infinite  ;  if  we  mav  believe  a  late  author, 
who  tells  us,  **  That  as  for  Plutarch,  one  of  the  fobereH  of  the 
**   philofbphfrs,  he  was  the  horrideft  Polytbeift  of  them  all ;  for 
•*   lie  aliens  two  Supreme  Anti-gods;  one  infinitely  good,  and 
**   the  oth  r  infinitely  evil. f"    Moreover,  fome  of  the  Deifts  do 
not  think  this  opinion  de^itute  of  probability,  as  we  have  noted 
before  |.    But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  yet, 

3.  It  is  certain  that  many  of  them,  notwithftanding  the  huge 
number  of  gods  they  maintained,  were  utterly  ignorant  of  the 
true  God'  This  is  fo  evident,  that  1  cannot  but  w©nder  at  our 
author's  impudence  in  denying  it,  cfpecially,  after  the  teftimo- 
nies  we  have  already  quoted  from  him.  We  have  heard  already 
that  the  Egyptians  and  Grecians  of  old  owned  no  other  gods 
befides  the  fun,  moon  and  ftars.  And  we  have  heard  the 
fame  of  the  Sabeans,  feveral  Americans  and  inhabitants  of 
Africa  ;  and  Celar  tells  us  the  fame  of  the  Germans — "  Deo^ 
**  rum  nianero  eos  folum  ducunty  quos  cernunty  &  quorum  opt- 
**  bus  aperte jiwamur,  foltm  &  vulcanum  &  lunam  ;  reliquos  ne 
^^  jama  quidem  acceperunt.y*  Yea,  our  author  is  forced  to 
make  a  fair  confeffion,  and  contradict  himfelf  in  the  entry  of 
liis  fourth  chapter,  where  fpeaking  of  the  Gentiles  and  their 
worrtiipping  of  the  fun,  he  delivers  himfelf  thus:  "  Incongrv 
**  uni  demuvi  exifiimaverant ,  ut  qui  cultum  ah  omnibus  jlagitarety 

"  acul- 

*  De  Rf  lig,  Gent.  pag.  163.      +  Nichol's  Confer.  Part  2.  pag.  57. 

I  Oracles  of  Reafon.  pag.   194. 

i  De  Bella  Gallico,  Lib.  6. — "  They  reckon  in  the  number  of  the 
*♦'  god»:  only  thofe  whom  they  fee,  and  by  whofe  power  they  are  evi- 
"  dcntly  alTifted,  that  is,  the  fun,  the  fire,  and  the  moon.  They  have 
"  not  iot  much  as  heard  of  the  other  gods." 


3IO  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE         chap.  xv. 

**  a  culiorihus  fins  fcfe  abfconderet  Deus:  Sclem  igitur  Deum 
*^  fere  omnes  Gentileiflatuebant^  non  fummum  quidem,  fed  fum^ 
**  mo  proximum,  ejufqu?  pr'.'clarijfimam  iconem^  licet  alii  muu' 
"  dum  totum,  tar.quam  Deo  plenum,  fummi  numinis  imaginem 
*^  fpeciofam  appiime  pr i  Je  fare  contender ent^ •'  Here  you  lee 
our  author  pofitivc,  fhcjt  they  put  not  the  fun  in  the  room  of  the 
One  true  God  :  None  of  them  did  it  ;  but  we  (Ijall  hear  him 
in  the  very  next  fentence  tell  us,  that  they  did  difcard  the  true 
(^od,  and  very  abfurdlv  put  another  in  his  place.  *'  Certe  uti 
**  olim  diElum  (fays  our  author)  qui  Jolem  vice  fuinmi  Dei  toluc' 
*'  runtf  perinde  ferere,  ac  i-li  qui  ad  aulam  potentiffimi  princi^ 
**  pis  accedenies,  quern  punijin  amitiu  fplendido  indutixm  ctT' 
*'  nerent,  regium  i  a  tu'tiun  dc'.jerendum  exiflimaverant^^'"  And 
our  authorknovvsfi'll  wcilthat  .it  At  leus  there  was  an  ahar  ere6^- 
ed  to  the  unknown  God;  and  Pml  cxpr  Ov  tells  them,  that  this 
vnknoiun  God,  was  the  tiae  God'  Whom  therefore  ye  ignor- 
antly  zvoifJiipt  him  d,;xlare  I  unto  you.  What  lays  our  author 
to  this  ?  He  directly  conlrad  cts  the  apoftle,  and  then  makes 
him  a  compliment,  ihat  is  well  nigh  to  nonfenfe.  **  Ccete- 
*'  rum,  (fays  he)  duriuSculi  O^^us  ignotus  AthenienGum  ad  De- 
*'  um  Juda^orum  rcfertur  :  Ut  ita  pricra  S.  S.  loca  Deum  Gen- 
**  tilium  eundum  ac  communem  omnium  Deum  evincant.  Nam. 
Deus  ille  ignotus  Athenie!:fi jm  alius  certe  fuit,  (ihis  is  a 
plain  contradiction  to  the  apollle's  affeition)  atque  ideo  puto 
ara  dcnatus,  ne  aliquis  forfan  incuitus  apud  illoseflet  Deus: 
**  Ut  belle  lamen  hinc  inflraendi  Gentiles  occafionem  captarit 
apoRolus.  Neque  dubium  mihi  efl,  quia  e  libro  naturas 
**   edo'iH  Deum  fuiiinium  lum   agnoverint,  tum   coluerint  Gen* 

**   tiles. 

*  Ds  Reli^r.  Gent.  yn^^.  20. — "  In  fine,  they  reckoned  it  incon- 
«  gruous  to  fnppof:',  that  God,  v.ho  required  uorlhip  from  all  n-iCn, 
'<  (houid  hide  hirrifejf  iror.n  his  worO-iipper?.  Therefore  almoft  all  the 
"  Heathens  thought  that  the  fun  was  a  god  ;  not  indeed  the  fupreme 
"  one,  but  next  to  the  fupreme,  and  his  moil  illoflrious  in-jage  ;  al- 
«  though  others  maiataned  that  the  whole  world,  as  being  full  of  God, 
«»  bore  a  diftind  ia-prciiion  of  his  image." 

+  "  Stjrsly,  33  was  faid  Jong  ago,  thofe  who  worfliipped  the  fun  in- 
"  l^ead  of  the  Supreme  f^eity*  a>ted  in  the  fame  manner  as  thofe  who 
"  going  to  the  court  of  a  rnoil  powerful  prince,  {hould  trdnk  that  the 
"  iiril  perfon  they  faw  I'plsiididly  drelTei  \?a=  the  kino^,  and  to  be  re 
"  vercnced  as  fiich.'* 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-       31 1 

**  tiles*."  Thus  w eke  qua???  belle f  how  pleafantly  our  author 
proceeds.  He  tells  us  that  it  is  hard  to  think,  though  the  apof- 
tlc  cxprefly  fays  fo,  that  this  vnknown  God  was  the  Gcd  of  the 
Jews.  But  if  we  will  not  Hand  to  our  author's  word,  then  he  tells 
uswhatfome  fcriptures  he  had  formerly  cited  prove;  viz.Adlsx. 
pa/f??i  A tXsKvVi,  28,  29.  Rom.  i.  19.  But  we  have  above  ft  cwed^ 
that  thefe  are  not  for  our  author's  purpofe.  We  1,  what  then 
remains  ?  Nothing,  but  only  this,  "  I  have  no  doubt,'*  fays  he, 
**  but  they  knew  the  true  God."  But  our  author's  certainty  will 
not  fatisfy  another  ;  and  we  juft  now  ihewed,  that  our  author  was 
not  fo  fully  fure  as  he  pretends  to  be  in  this  place.  But  yet 
t^ur  apoftle,  he  tells  us,  took  very  handfomcly  occafion  hence 
to  inftru^l  the  Gentiles  ;  that  is,  if  we  believe  our  author,  he 
took  occafion  from  a  falfe  fuppofiiion  to  inflru6l  them.  But 
it  is  a  kindnefs  that  he  ufed  any  compliment,  though  a  ri- 
(Jiculous  one.      But  leaving  this,  I  go  on. 

4.  They  among  the  nations,  who  owned  One  Supreme  God, 
did  frequently,  if  not  for  moO  part,  puf  feme  others  in  the 
room  of  the  true  God.  Some  made  the  World  God.  This  is 
what  Balbus  the  Stoick  fets  up  for  with  all  his  might  in  Cecero's 
fecond  book  de  Nat*  Deor.  throughout.  **  x'Vtqui  certe  nihil 
**  omnium  rerum  melius  eft,  Mundo,  nihil  praeftabilius,  nihil 
**  palchrius  :  Nee  folum  nihil  eft,  i'cd  ne  cogitari  quidem  quic- 
**  quam  melius  poteft  :  Et  fi  ratione  &  fapientia  nihil  eft  meii- 
**  us,  neceile  eft  hs^c  inefte  in  eo,  quod  optimum  cfTe  concc- 
'*  dimus  f:"  i^nd  therefore  a  little  after  he  concludes  the  ztwrld 

Gcd 

*  «*  It  was  rather  fcmewhat  hard  to  refer  the  unknown  God  of  the 
"  Athenians  to  the  God  of  the  Jews,  as  ihe  foriTittr  places  of  lioly 
"  fcripture  prove  that  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  was  the  fame  with  that 
**  of  the  jeus,  and  the  coramcjn  God  of  all  men.  For  this  unknown 
**  God  of  the  Athenians  was  certainly  another  one,  and  1  fuppofe  was 
**  honoured  with  an  aitar  for  this  reafon,  that  no  god  perhaps  inighr 
<*  be  wiihoct  worfhip  among  them.  Yet  how  prettily  does  the  apof- 
«  tie  rake  an  opportunity  from  hence  of  inftruding  the  Gentiles,  l-ar 
**  is  it  doubtful  with  me,  that  the  Gentiles,  taught  by  the  book  of 
<<  nature,  both  acknowledged  and  worlhipped  the  fupreme  Gcd." 

•f  f*  And  certainly  noiie  cf  ail  things  is  better  than  the  World,  no- 
**  thing  is  more  exccilenf,  nothing  is  more  beautiful;  and  not  ct;iy 
^*  nothing  exifts,  but  nothing  can  be  imagined  that  is  better  than  the 
«*  World.  And  if  nothing  is  better  than  Pv.ea fen  and  Wifdom,  thefe 
"  qualities  muit  neceffariiy  be  conceived  to  belong  to  that  which  zc 
"  acknowledge  to  be  the  beft  of  all  things." 


312  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  xv. 

God.     Cicero  hlmfelf  was  of  the  fame  mind  :   For,  wben  Vel- 
leius  the  Epicurean   had   heen  heard  and  refuted    by  Cotta  the 
academick  ;  and  Epicurus's  wild  opinions  about   the  gods,  had 
been  fully  expofed,  which  is  the  fubjedl  of  the  firft  book  ;    Bal- 
bus  the  Stoick  propofes  and  defends  the  Stoicks'  opinion  about 
the  nature,  being,  and  number  of  the  ^ods,  and    their   provi- 
dence, and  defends  it  after  the  be(l  manner  he  can,  (where,  by 
the  way,  there  is  not  one  word   of   the  true,  God,  but  a  full 
difcovery  of  the  groflTeft    i2;norance    of   him,  and   the    greatefi: 
wickednefs  and  folly  in  afTsrting  a  plurality  of  gods,  and  part- 
ing all  the  excellencies  of  the  true  God   among   theni).     This 
makes  up  the   fecond  book.     In  the  third  book  Cotta  the  aca- 
demick,  difputes  againft,  and  expofes  the  Stoicks'  opinions   as 
defended    by  Balbus  ;    and  in  the  iaft    fentence  of  the  book, 
Cicero  gives  his  iiriy-fiTis  or  cenfure  of  the  v/hole  in  thefe  wortis, 
"   Hsec  cum  eff^nt  ditla,  ita  diiceffimus,  ut  Veileio  Cotrae  difpu- 
"   tatio  verier,  nnihi   Balbi  ad    veritatis  fimilitudinem  videretur 
**   eiJe   propenfior*."     Vellcius   the  Epicurean   favours  Cotta, 
who  difproved   the  whole  opinions  about   the  gods,  and  put  no 
better  in  their  place.   And  Cicero  was  pleafed  with  Balbus,  who 
maintaned  the  Stoicks'  fentiments.     What  they   were  we   h 've 
jufl   now   noted.     And  whether  Plato,  Ariitotle,  yea  and   So- 
crates were   not  of  this  opinion,  is  not  To  very  clear.     Certain 
it.  is,  that  they   paid  a   little  too   great  refpedl  to  the   worlds  if 
they  were  not.     Let  us  hear  our  author.     Plato  in  tini:' o  tt  U" 
gibus  dicit  i^  mundum  drum  e/J'e  &  cerium  &  ajlra,  ^c.\     But 
whatever  were    their  fentiments,  it  is  not    of  fo   great   confe- 
quence  to   the  quelHon  under  conilderation,  to   fpend   time  in 
inquiring,  fince  it   is  evident  that   many  were   of  this  opinion. 
Others  tliought  that  the  heaven  was  God,  and  this  is  owned  by 
Ennius  the  poet,  quoted  by  our  author,  in  that  noted   verfe  fo 
frequently   mentioned    by  Cicero,  Afpicc  hoc  Jublime  candens^ 
quan    omnes  invocant   JovnnX*     And  there   alfo  he  tells  us  of 
an  old  infcription  found  at  Rome,  Optimum  Maximus  caliis  ^ter^ 
nus»  Thus  we  fee  the  heavens  dignified  withihofe  very  epithets, 
which  our  author  pretends    to  have  been    peculiar   to    the    Su- 
preme   God.       And    he    tells  us,  that    fome    are   of  opinion, 

that 

*  ^<  When  thofe  things  had  been  faicl,  we  parted,  but   fo  that  the 

"  difcourfe  of  Cotta  feemed  to  Vclleius  to  be  truer,  but  that  of  Bal- 

<"•  bus  feemed  to  me  to  approach  more  nearly  to  the  likenefs  of  truth." 

\    De  Rt'Ug.  Gent.  pag.  59.  %  I^-^i'^>-  V'^Z'  54« 


PRINCIPLES  OF  TH£  MODERN  DEISTS.       313 

that  Pythagoras  inclined  tins  way*  and  our  author  leaves  it  in 
floubt.  If  Arillotle  and  Plato  M^ere  not  of  this  mind,  that  the 
heavens  were  the  Supreme  God,  as  we  ice  fome  others  were  ; 
yet  they  did  own  heaven  for  God,  and  to  be  vvorflriipped  as  fuch. 
*'  Sed  non  folummodi  calum  divino  honore  coUndum  decrevcrant 
**  facerdotes,  fed  et  ipfi  pkilofophi  cdebriores,  adto  ut  ncn  Sta- 
*'  girita  tantumf  Jed  Emiuus  ejus  preceptor  it  a  jlatuerint  *." 
But  the  mcft  prevalent  opinion  was,  that  the  jun  was  the  one 
true  and  Stupreiue  Gnd. — That  many,  and  pernaps  moft  nations 
thought  {q,  the  teftimonies  above  alleged  fuljy  prove,  and  we 
have  heard  cur  author  confelling  it  as  to  fome.  I  fhall  only  add 
a  few  ren^iarks  more  to  this  purpolc.  There  is  a  qoutatlon  of 
Macrobius,  which  I  find  in  our  author,  that  is  worth  noticing, 
*'  Afiyrii  (incj(,it  Macr.)  quern  Deuni  funiiiium  maximumq  ; 
"  vcnerantur,  iVdad  nomen  dcderunt,  ejus  nominis  interp2:!ra- 
"  tio  fignihcat  unus.  Hunc  ergo  ut  f)otentiflimum  adoiant  De- 
"  um,  fed  tubjungunt  deam  nomine  Atcigatin  ;  omnemque  po* 
"  leOatem  hiice  duobus  attribuunt,  folem  teramque  inteliigen- 
*'  tesf."  And  our  author  further  acquaints  us  as  to  the  Peihans, 
*'  Qijod  Perix  duo  principia  ftatuebant,  Oromazen  fcil.  tanquem 
**  boni  fonremt  Et  Arirnanium,  maii. — Inter  quos  medium  & 
'*  quail  arbitruiii  y.ofuere  folem  if."  I  have  in  the  clofe  of  our 
torn^er  chapter,  quoted  a  notable  paffage  from  our  author  to  the 
fame  purpofe,  wherein  he  tells  us,  that  all  the  names  of  the 
true  God,  were  afciibed  to  the  fun.  Gf  the  fame  opinion  m  ere 
the  Phenicians,  Britains  of  old,  and  their  famed  Druides,  and 
perhaps  mo/i  nations.  Yea,  £0  deeply  did  this  fix  its  roots  in 
\\\z  minds  of  mcrl,  that  the  greaki^  among   the   Heathen  philo- 

(^  q  fophers 

*  De  Rel,  Gent.  pag.  29. — "  But  not  orJy  were  the  prieftsof  opin- 
*'  ion  that  the  heaven  ought  to  l>e  worfliipped  with  divine  honours, 
*'  but  alfo  the  mcft  famous  phil'jfophers,  fo  that  not  only  the  Stag)  rite 
"  but  his  mafter  before  him,  was  ot  that  opinion.'* 

+  Ibid.  pag.  24^ — "  The  AlTyrians,  fays  Macrobius,  gave  the  name 
<*  Adadi  which  fsgnines  oner  to  that  Being  whom  they  held  to  be  the 
*<  fuprenne  «nd  greateft  God.  Therefore  they  adore  him  as  the  riiofl 
*f  powerful  God,  but  thev  add  to  hin^  a  goddefs  named  Atergatis,  and 
♦*  afcribe  all  power  to  thefe  two,  meaning  the  fun  and  the  earth." 

t  Ibid.  pag.  23. — '<  That  the  Perfians  hold  two  firft  principles,  to 
"  wir,  Aromazes  as  the  fountain  of  good,  and  Arimanius  of  evd,  be- 
"  twixt  whom  they  phcsd  the  fun  in  the  iniddle,  and  as  it  were  an 
*«  arbifer.'* 


314  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE  chap.  xv. 

fophers  can  fcarce  be  freed  from  an  inclination  lliis  vay  *. 
Plato  tells  us,  iiow  devout  Socrates  was  in  the  woilhip  of  the 
fun,  and  that  feveral  times  he  fell  into  an  extafy,  while  thus 
einployed.f  Nor  are  the  famous  Indian  philofophers  one  whit 
more  wife.  *'  Not  onlv  the  Brachinans,  but  all  the  Indians, 
**  veaatid  the  famed  Appolionius  (wliom  the  Heathens  compar- 
"  ed  to  our  blefied  Lord,  motl  bl.ifphemouflv  and  groundlcfly) 
<•  worlhipped  the  fan  J."  And  we  have  Appollonius's  prayer 
fo  the  lun,  recorded  bv  Philollratus  in  his  life,  Lib.  I.  O/umrn^ 
Jbl,  CD  meter  r  arum  miitc,  quo  me  projtcturum  ejjc  cognoJc2u  & 
concede,  precor,  vt  viros  bcnos.  a.^^no/lam;  improhos  vero  neq, 
a^nofcam,  neq  ;  agnofcar  ah  iiiis§.  Yea  after  the  light  or  the 
glorious  gofpel  had  cleared  the  philofopber's  eyes,  and  made  them 
aa-»amed  of  mucii  of  their  religion,  yet  even  the  Platon-ck  phi- 
io.ophcrs  coiild  not  quit  the  thoughts  of  the  fun's  being  God. H' 

But  not  only  did  fome  look  on  the  fun  as  the  Supreme  God  ; 
but  (if  we  mav  believe  Hornbeck,  who  was  at  great  pains  to  un- 
deifbnd  the  religions  of  theworld,  and  paiticulaiiy  of /imerica) 
feveral  nations  in  America,  particularly  the  inhabit^mts  of  New- 
France,  and  they  who  inhabit  about  thd  river  Sag<^dabcc,  wor- 
(iiip  piincipaliy  the  devil  or  a  malignant  fpirit-** 

Thus  v/c  have  fully  dcmonftratcd  what  we  undertook,  and 
hereby  quite  froib'd  the  whole  (torv  of  an  univerl^i  religion: 
And  our  author  has  been  fo  unhappv,  as  to  lay  to  our  hands 
many  of  the  arsumeras,  whereby  we  have  difproved  his  own  po- 
f^tion.  Thisftcn  beini-  one:;  g.-ined,  ve  fhall  be  more  brief 
in  the  confideration  of  the  rcmaininp:  articles  :  For  they  all  fall 
with  this,  if  there  is  a  miO.ike  as  to  this,  there  can  remain 
nothing  fincere  in  rr-lioion.  If  the  true  God  is  not  known,  he 
cann<jt\e  wot ;h>ppfiJ^ ^vd  rewards  and  pinufJmentsc3n not  be 
r;^Mtfi/ from  him;   nor  can  we  be  fenfiblc   of,  or  fori y  tor  any 

offence 

«  This  is  fully  proven  by  Dr.  Owen,  Hornbeck  and  others,  in  their 
books  formerly  referred  lo. 

+  SeeOwei'vs'lheolog.«Lib.  3.  Cap.  4.  pag.   182. 

J   Jlornbeck  pag.  31.  ' 

f  «  O  fuprrrae  fun,  fend  n^e  to  that  piut  of  the  world,  to  which 
<r  you  know  J  am  going,  ar.cl  gr.nt,  1  pray,  that  I  n^.av  know  good 
<«'men,  but  that  i  may  neither  kucvv  bad  man,  nor  be  known  by  them. 

II  Owen  ubi  fupra.  Lib.  3.  Cap.'  5.  pag.    194. 

***  Horubeck  de  Conver.  Gcntll.  Lib.  {.Cap.  9*  pag.   70,  71. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       315 

offence  done  5s:ain(i  him.  So  that  wc  might  flop  here,  as  hav- 
ing ruined  whollv  thaf  caiife  our  author  uadertypk  Xo  dst'end: 
But  we  Ihall  confider  the  reft  ^iia* 


ARTICLE       II. 

li  was  not   univerfally  agreed    that  ike  One  True  God  is  to  be 
luo'jktppjd- 

HOW  could  they  agree  as  to  the  worftiipping  him  whorfi 
they  did  know  to  he  ?  If  it  would  not  frighten  the  perlbns  con- 
cerned, I  might  here  pertinently  afk  them  the  queition  the  a- 
poftle  puts,  Rom.  x.  14.  Hozu  fhalT  they  call  on  him,  in  whom 
they  have  not  believed '  And  how  jhall  they  believe  in  him^  of 
whotn  they  have  not  heard? 

And  farther,  even  they  who  owned  one  fupreme  God,  ma- 
ny of  them  entertained  fuch  notions  of  him,  as  made  him  un- 
worthy of  any  worHiio.  He  tells  us  that  many  of  them  locked 
him  up  in  heaven,  denying  his  providence  ;  and  one  would 
almoft  think  our  author  had  been  of  their  opinion,  while  he 
tells  us,  *•  Rede  di&u},i  efl  oh?n,  quod  dternum  beatu?nque  ejl  nee 
**  negotii  quicquam  habere y  ne:  exhiberi  alteri* ***  But  whatever 
our  author's  thoughts  were,  it  is  well  known,  that  this  opinion 
prevailed  very  far,  and  obtained  amoiifjO  many,  if  not  moll  na- 
tions, who  owned  one  fuprems  God  befrJes  the  fun.  And  they 
were  further  of  opinion,  that  God  had  committed  the  whole  man- 
agement of  the  world  to  deputies.  Our  author  iriforms  us,  (hat 
the  ancient  Heathens  divided  ihdr  ^ods  iniofuper-celt/iial,  ce- 
leflial,  Tind  ftjb~celeflial\;  and  he  tells  us,  that  the  chief  god,  and 
his  companions  the  fuper-celeftial  gods,  have  not  any  fuch 
concernment  in,  or  regard  to  the  things  that  are  tranfa^ied  in 
this  world,  as  to  m.ake  them  take  any  notice  of  them  ;  and 
that  the  Supreme  God  has  withdrav^^n  himielf  and  the  fuper- 
cel'eftial  gods  from  the  view  of  mortals,  as  being  of  too  fub- 
lime  a  nature  to  be  kno.vn  by  them  :  and  that  he  lias  deputed 
the  fun,  moon,  and  ftars  to  infpeCt  the  world,  as  the  on'y  gods 
Vviio  can  be  enjoyed  by  men.     **   Deuai  fuiiirfium  vero  feiplum 

fuper- 

*  Da  Relig.  Gent.  pag.  174.—  "  It  was  well  iWid.  of  dd.  that  a  being 
«  that  is  eternal  raid  happy,  neither  has  aoy  trouDie  ia  itfslf,  nor  gives 
"  any  trouble  to  anoihtrr.'* 

'  Ibid,  pag.  1  TO. 


3i6  AN    INQUIRY   INTO   THE         chap.  xv. 

'*  fupercceleflefq  ;  Dcos  a  confpef^u  mortallum  rcmovilTe,  quod 
'*  fubliniis  adeo  effent  naturae,  ul  nulla  eos  acies  latis  portinge- 
*'  ret,  ejus  loco  non  in  confpectum  lolum,  fed  in  fruitlonem 
**  quandam  produxilTe  deos  illos  cuelefies,  qui  a  nobis  fol,  lu- 
**  ria,  cce'um,  &c.  vocantar*."  And  the  Indian  Brachmins  icem 
indeed  to  be  of  the  lame  mind,  as  we  know  the  xvhole  followers 
of  Epicurus  weref .  Yea,  the  inhabitants  of  Calecut,  a  kinp;- 
dom  in  the  Eail-Indies,  are  fo  abfurd  as  to  imagine  that  the  de- 
vil is  God's  deputy,  to  whom  tlie  government  of  the  world  is 
comnvitted.  And  hence  they  worflnip  the  devil  f.rincipaily, 
(as  likewile  do  the  kingdoms  of  Decum  and  Narfinga)  and 
'*  their  king  has  in  his  oratory  the  image  of  the  devil  with 
**  a  crown  on  his  head,  fo  very  frightful,  that  the  moft  relb- 
*'  lute  tremble  at  the  fight  of  it  :  the  wail  is  all  painted 
**  with  leiTer  devils  ;  and  in  each  corner  (lands  one  of  brafs, 
**  fo  well  done,  that  it  feems  all  in  ilamesl."  Now  if  fuch 
notions  are  entertained  of  God,  it  is  no  wonder  though  he  be' 
by  many  thought  not  worth  liie  worfliipping.  The  confequen- 
ces  of  thofe  apprehenhons  I  cannot  better  exprefs,  than  Cicero 
has  done  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  hrft  book  ck  Nat.  Deo^ 
rum-  **  Sunt  enim  philofophi,  &  tuerunt,  qui  oninino  nul- 
**  lam  habere  cenferent  humanarum  rerum  procurationem  deos: 
Qj-iorum  fi  vera  fententia  efl,  qua^  poteft  eiTe  pietas  ?  Qu^e  ' 
fan'flitas?  Q^uoe  rcligio  ?  ft  deii  neque  pofi'unt  nos  juvare, 
nee  volunt,  nee  curant  omnino,  nee  quid  agamus  animad- 
vertant  ;  nee  efi:  quod  ab  his  ad  hominum  vjtam  permanare 
poffit:  Q_uod  efl,  quod  ullos  diis  imrnortalibus  cuitus,  honc- 
rcs,  preces  adhibearaus  J?"     And  much    more  to   the   fame 

purpcfe* 

*  De  Reli-;,  Gent-  pa?.  171.— «  But  that  the  fupreme  God  had 
"  witudr<ivvn  iiimfelf  and  the  other  fuper-celf:rtiai  gods  from  the  \vi\\i 
"  of  niortalb,  bt^caufe  they  were  of  fo  fubliire  a  nature  thai  no  human 
"  eye  could  fumciently  leach  them;  but  that  lie  had  fei  up  in  his  place, 
"  not  only  for  our  knowledge,  bat  fruition,  thofe  celeiiiai  godb,  which 
"  are  called  hy  us  the  fun,  the  moon,  the  heaven,  <ic." 

+  Hornbcck,  pa^-.  40. 

:J:  See  Caleatti  in  Great.  Gcograph.  Dtifiicn, 

\  "  F.  r  tliere  are  and  have  been  phiiofcpbers,  who  think  th  t  the 
**  i?<>ds  tai^e  no  care  at  all  of  human  affairs,  and  if  tiie>r  opinion  be 
**  trde,  what  piety  can  there  be  r  or  what  fan«^l:Iiy  ?  u-hat  reltgi.m  ? 
♦<  if  the  gods  neither  can,  nor  will  help  v.s,  nor  obferve  what  we  do; 
"  nor  is  there  ar-v  thing  that  can  come  from  them  into  human  life. 
"  What  reafon  is  there  then,  why  we  fhould  oiFer  any  wor{h;p,  ho» 
<*  noun  or  prayer^  to  the  iiUinortai  gods  r" 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       317 

purpofe.  Thoiigh  he  fpeaks  of  a  plurality  of  gods,  yet  what 
he  Lys  holdsUueas  to  the  cafe  In  hand  :  for  if  we  entertain, 
or  if  the  Gentiles  did  entertain,  as  we  fee  fome  of  iheni  did, 
fuch  notions  of  iheir  fupretne  God,  as  he  here  foeaks  of,  the 
farne  conftciuences  mud  follow;  and  it  is  not  credible  that  any, 
who  thought  fo,  could  judge  the  fupreme  God  worthy  of  wor- 
fiiip.   And  indeed  we  hnd  them  no  way  concerned  about  It. 

In  fine,  not  a  few  of  tlie  wifer,  who  entertained  the  moft 
jufl  thoughts  of  God  of  any,  yet  being  in  the  dark  as  to  the 
way  of  worihipping  God,  have  declared  agalnO  any  worflnp,  at 
jeail  In  practice,  till  it  ihouid  by  himfelf  be  condefcended  on. 
Thus  it  is  as  to  the  wifer  fort  among  the  Chinefe — *'  De  Deo 
**  eoque  colendo  non  funt  foliciti.  Unum  quidcm  agnofcunt 
**  fummum  numen,  a  quo  omnia  confervarl  &  regi  credunt  : 
<'  Sed,  quia  quomodo  coli  velit,  ignorare  fe  profitentur  ;  fa- 
**  tius  autumant  cultum  ejus  omittcre,  quam  In  eo  defignaiido 
*'  errare*."  And  perhaps  the  beft  philofophers  In  other  na- 
tions were  not  of  a  different  mind.  Thus  we  fee  how  far  they 
were  from  being  agreed  ^bout  this  article. 


ARTICLE       III. 

The  Gentile  World  were  not  agreed  in  judging  that  Virtue  and 
Piety  are  the  principal  parts  of  tke  zvorfliip  of  God, 

HOW  it  fliould  come  Into  our  author's  head  to  think  that 
they  were  agreed,  is  a  little  ftrange,  confidering  how  little  is  to 
be  found  among  their  writers  that  looks  this  way.  But  I  fup- 
pofe  the  cafe  was  this,  he  had  concluded  that  they  were  agreed 
about  the  king  of  one  true  God,  and  to  make  his  religion  com- 
plete he  behoved  to  have  them  fome  way  agreed  aboot  his  wcr- 
fhip  too.  But  he  found  them  endlefsly  divided  about  their  fo- 
lemn  worfnip,  and  none  of  it  dlre£\ed  to  the  one  true  God,  but 
all  exprefsiy  aimed  at  other  things:  wherefore  there  was  no 
other  thing  left  that  could  be   to  his  purpofe;  and  therefore  he 

finding 

*  Hornbeck  ubi  fupra,  pag.  47.—"  They  have  no  anxiety  nbouc 
«*  God  or  his  vvorrriip,  '1  hey  acknowledge  indeed  one  Supreme  Dei- 
"  ty,  by  whom  they  think  that  all  things  are  preferved  and  governed  ; 
♦<  but  as  they  profefs  that  they  do  not  know  in  what  manner  he  chafes 
**  to  be  worfhipped,  they  think  it  better  to  let  alone  his  worfnip  ai- 
"  together,  than  to  err  in  determining  it." 


3iS  AN    INQUIRY   INTO    THE         chap.  xv. 

finding  that  there  was  fomewhat  that  all  the  world  agreed  in, 
pa\'lng  foinc  refpc^t  to,  a{  leail,  in  words,  under  the  name  of 
virtue  ;  he  wonld  reeds  appropriate  tliis  (o  the  Uue  God  for  his 
worPnip,  though  he  his  no  warrant  from  the  Gentiles  to  do  (o» 
An\  truly  after  all,  if  this  was  the  worihip  of  the  true  God,  or 
deligned  as  fuch,  whatever  agreement  ttiere  might  be  in  opiniori 
about  the  worihip  of  the  one  true  God.  1  think  there  was  none 
in  praBicEj  if  not  in  a  tot^l  nesiledl  of  it:  For  how  few  were 
there,  who  can  have  the  ieal  pretence  to  challenge  that  name 
aoiongft  all  thofe,  whofe  names  have  been  tranfmitted  to  us! 
How  true  was  the  poet  Juvenal's  obfervation, 

Rari  quippe  bovi)  nuntero  'vix  fu7it  tot  id  em.  quot 
^1  h^barum  portce,  di'viiis  Tel  ojiia  Nili  *, 

But  to  leave  this,  and  come  to  the  point  in  hand  fomewhat  more 
clofely, 

I.  It  is  evident  that  the  world  was  very  far  from  being  ar 
greed,  that  there  is  cne  God :  Far  more  were  they  divided  about 
the  acknowledgment  of  the  true  God,  and  whom  they  ihould 
own  as  fuc'i.  It  was  therefore  utterly  impoflible  th^t  they 
fiiould  condefcend  on  this,  as  a  principal  part  of  the  worfhip  of 
God;   whom  they  did   not  know  to  have  any  being. 

2,  So  far  were  they  from  looking  on  virtue  as  the  principal  part, 
of  the  worihip  of  the  gods,  whom  they  owned,  that  the  worfhip 
of  many  of  their  goJs,  was  thought  to  conhft  in  things  that  were 
crofs  to  the  plained  dictates  of  nature's  light.  Our  author  ac- 
quaints us  frequently  with  the  obfcenities,  the  cruelties,  and 
other  extravagancies  of  their  worihip.  The  obfcenities  are  too 
fuliome  to  be  repeated.  The  furious  extravagancie.i,  religious, 
or  rather  fuperliitious  fury  and  niadnefs  ufed  in  the  woriTiip  of 
Bacchus,  are  known  to  efery  one.  And  for  their  cruelty, 
who  knows  not  that  human  facrifices  were  aimoU  uni^'erfally 
uied  ?  Some  offered  captives,  Icme  Oifcred  Orans^ers,  fome  fa- 
cnficed  their  deareit  reianonsand  children,  and  that  in  the  mofl 
cruel  manner  f , 

3.  We  n'?ed  go  tio  fLirther  than  our  author's  book,  to  learn, 
that  mcil   nations  were  io  far  from  locking  co  virtue  as  any  part 

of 

"  "  For  good  men  are  rare,  and  fcarcely  a.%  nDmerous  as  the  gafes 
"  of  Thebes,  or  the  mouihs  of  the  fcebis  Nil-.*." 

+  See  this^  fully  }>roven  in  the  lenrncd  and  excellent  Dr.  Owen'e 
treatiie  de  Jujutici  '-oiiidicatricei  from  pag.  66  to  100,  by  auriientic 
teihmouics,  widi  fuch  remarks  as  may  be  worth  the  reading. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERxN  DEISTS.        319 

of  the  ivcrflhip  due  to  any  of  thofe  gods  they  owned,  that  (hev 
placed  it  wholly  in  fuch  other  things,  as  our  author,  aiTiongil: 
others,  has  given  us  a  large  account  of. 

4.  They,  who  were  mod  zealous  for  virtue,  were  very  far 
from  looking  on  it  as  a  part  of  the  worlhip  of  God,  or  direiSling 
it  to  his  glory.  I  believe  our  author,  were  he  alive,  for  all 
his  reading  would  find  it  difficult  to  find  one  fair  tefiiinony  to 
this  purpole«  They  looked  not  on  themfe'ves  as  debtors  to 
God  for  their  virtue.  Hence  Cotta,  after  he  has  acknowledged 
that  we  are  indebted  to  God  for  our  riches  and  eternal  enjoy- 
ments, adds;  **  Virtutem  autcm  nemo  unquam  acceptam  Deo 
**  retulit,  nimirum  re6fe:  Propter  viitutem  enim  lap.dantur,  & 
**  in  virtute  re6\e  gloriamur;  quod  non  contingeret,  h  id  donum 
**  a  Deo  haberemus."  Hence  a  little  after,  he  adds,  **  Nam  quis 
**  quod  bonus  vir  eiTet,  gratias  dils  egit  unquam*!"  And  much 
more 'to  the  fame  purpofe.  They  thought  that  their  virtue 
made  them  equal  to  their  gods.  "  Hoc  eft  quod  philofophia  mi- 
**  hi  proroittit,  ut  me  parem  Deo  faciat.f"  Yea  not  only  fo,  but 
they  pretended  their  virtues  placed  them  above  their  gods.  **  Eft 
**  aliquid,  quo  fapier.s  antccedat  deufi),  ille  naturae  beneficio, 
**  non  fuo,fapienseni.."  And  again,"  Deus  non  vincit  fapientem 
*'  felicitate,  ctiarr.fi  vincit  jetate  :  Non  enim  efl  virtus  major, 
**  quae  ior;gicr§."  Picnce  they  will  not  have  us  fo  much  as  to 
pray  to  God,  cither  as  to  virtue  or  felicity.  It  is  a  mean  thincr 
to  weary  the  gods.  '*  Qiizci-  veils  opus  eft?  Jatio  fdicem\\S' 
And  much  more  to  the  fame  purpofe, 

ARTICLE 

*  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deor.  p.  mihi.  187.  Lib.  3. — <i  For  nobcdv  ev^r 
"  ccnfcfTcd  that  he  owed  hit  virtue  to  God,  for  we  are  juilly  praifed 
«  on  accccnt  of  our  virrue,  and  we  juilly  boafl  of  it,  which  would  not 
<'  be  the  cafe  if  we  had  our  virtue  as  a  gift  frcm  God.  .  .  .  Nor  did 
*<  any  body  ever  give  thanks  to  the  gods  becaufe  he  was  a  good  a^an/' 

t  Seneca,  Epiil.  48 — «  This  it  what  pbilofophy  proiLJfes  n.e,  to 
"  make  rpe  equal  to  God.'' 

X  Idem,  Epift.  55. — "  There  is  fomething  in  which  a  whe  man 
"  excels  God,  that  die  forraer  is  wife  by  his  osvn  benefit,  but  the  lat- 
**  ter  by  that  of  nature." 

II  Kplu.  73. — "God  does  not  exceed  awife  man  in  happinef,  though 
'*  he  exceeds  hira  in  age,  for  virtue  is  not  the  greater  in  pioporticn  as 
«'  it  is  oWtT," 

§  EDiil.  Si' — "  Wliat  need  has  he  of  prayers  v. ho  is  acln^llv  h.an- 


AN   INQUIRY    INTO    THE         chap,  xv, 


ARTICLE       IV. 

It  did  not  tmiv^rfally  ol?tain,  that  repentance  is  ii  fujficient  tx- 
piatation  ;  or,  thai  we  mujt  reptrA.  Jcr  o^enccs  dent  againfi 
the  true  God, 

OUR  author  has  acknowlegei,  that  there  is  rarely  ment'on 
cf  this  aa!ong(^  the  ancients ;  aad  we  have  already,  by  qnota- 
tions  froti]  him,  cleared  that  the  ancient  Keatbeos  did  no;  tlniik 
it  a  fufficient  expiation,  and  indeed  that  it  was  of  no  great  con- 
fideratioo  among  tliein,  is  lufhcicntly  evident  froin  their  not 
taking  any  notice  of  it,  even  when  the  faireft  occasions  prefent 
themfelves.  And  finally,  there  can  be  nothing  more  certain, 
than  that  their  repentance  could  not  aim  at  the  offence  done  to 
the  true  God,  of  whom  many  of  them  were  utterly  ignorant. ^ 
But  what  has  been  faid  is  fufiicient  to  fl-iew  that  it  did  not  uni- 
verfaJIy  obtain  in  any  fenl'e,  that  can  turn  to  any  account 
to  tiie    Deilts. 

A    R    T    I    C    L    E       V. 

It  ZL'dS  not  univcrf ally  agreed,  that  tlure  are  rezoards  and  pun' 
ijjniients  after  this  life* 

I.  HOWEVER  many  there  were  that  maintained  the  im- 
mortality of  the  fouls  of  men,  it  is  certain,  that  there  were  very 
many  dilTentienis,  who  were  of  a  dil^Ferent  mind,  and  that  of 
all  forts  of  people. 

The  famed  lects  arnone;  the  Inlians,  which  they  call  Scha.er- 
waecha  Pafenda  and  IJchctieat  if  we  may  bsiieve  Hornbeck  in 
his  account  of  ihem,  all  deny  a  future  iiate  *• 

Nor  are  wife  Chir.efe,  at  leafi:  manv  of  them,  of  a  different 
rr/md.  They  are  divided  in  rl  -re  fe<^\3.  The  iiift  feci  cf  their 
philofophers  are  the  followers  of  the  famed  Confucius^;  their 
morals  are  as  refined  as  perhaps  thcfe  of  the  moft  polite  parts  of 
the  v/orld,  if  not  more.  But  ss  to  the  foul,  thev  feem  to  make 
it  a  part  of  God,  which  at  death  returns  to  that  firrt  Principle, 
whence  it  was  broke  o!^-'.  Let  as  hear  PoHevinus's  account  of 
them.      As  to  this  matter  he  favs,  they   riiaintain,     *'  Kominis 

**  cor 

*  Hornbeck,  pag,  3  5,  ubi  fuira. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS,       321 

*'  cor  efle  unum  &  eandem  rem  cum  illo  primo  rerum  princi- 
**  pio;  cumque  homo  rr.oritur,  cor  perire  prorfus  &  abfumi, 
**  i'uperetTe  tamen  ex  eo  primum  principlum,  quod  vitam  ante 
**  conferebat."  And  fuither,  they  maintan,  *'  P*^^^  hominem 
**  in  hac  vita  fummam  principii  cognofcendi  perfe6tIonem  ad- 
**  ipifci,  &  meditando  pervenire  ad  maximam  vitae  tranquii- 
**  litatem,  &  hoc  cile  ruiT7mum  bonum,  quod  donee  obtineat, 
**  continuo  motu  agatur,  &  de  inferno  uno  in  alium  conjiciatur, 
*'  ufqae  dum  contemplando  &  meditando  ad  fafiigium  perven- 
**  erit  tranquiliitatis,  qucz  in  principio  illo  primo  eft*."  Thefe 
are  the  apprehenfions  of  their  beft  moralifts. 

But  there  are  other  two  feds,  that  plainly  declare  againft  a 
future  ftate,  are  for  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  and  have  no 
prorpe6l  beyond  timef. 

Of  this  fame  opinion  were  not  only  fingle  perfons,  but  ma- 
ny fetSls  of  the  ancient  philofophers,  whom  Cicero  mentions, 
and  concludes  his  account  of  them  thus — **  His  fententiis  om- 
*'  nibus  nihil  pofl  mortem  pertinere  ad  quemquam  poteft  :  Pari- 
**  ter  enim  cum  vita  fenfus  amittitur  |."  And  a  little  after, 
fpeaking  of  the  oppofition  made  to  Plato's  opinion  about  the 
immortality  of  the  foul,  he  fays,  "  Sed  plurimi  contra  (Pla- 
**  tonis  fcil.  fcntentiam)  nituntur,  animofq  ;  quafi  capite  dam- 
**  nates  morte  mulclant."  And  fome  palfages  after,  fpeaking 
of  the  fame  opinion,  he  fays,  **  Caterv^  veniunt  contradicen- 
**  tium,  non  folum  Epicureorum,  quos  equidem  non  defpicio, 
**  fed  nefcio  quomodo  dodifiimus  quifque  contemnit.  Acerri- 
**  me  autem  deliciae  meae  dico  Archias,  contra  banc  immor- 
**  lalitatem  differuit  :   Is  enim  tres  libros  fcripfit,  qui  Lelhiaci 

R  r  **  vocantur 

*  Hornbeck,  pag.  47,  48.— <«  That  the  heart  of  man  is  one  and  the 
<*  fame  thing  with  that  firft  Principle  of  things,  and  that  when  a  man 
«  dies,  his  heart  quite  peiilhes  and  is  confumed,  yet  that  the  firll  Prin- 
•*  ciple  of  it  remains,  which  formerly  gave  him  life.  .  .  .  That 
»<  a  man  may  in  this  life  attain  to  the  higheft  perfeiflion  of  the  principle 
"  of  knowledge,  and  arrive  by  meditation  to  the  grcateft  tranquillity 
««  of  life,  and  that  until  he  obtain  this,  he  is  agitated  by  a  perpetual 
'*  motion,  and  thrown  from  one  hell  into  a  another,  till  by  contempla- 
"  tion  and  meditation  he  arrive  at  the  furamit  of  tranquiUity  which  is 
«<  in  that  firil  Principle." 

+  Ibid,  pag.  4?,  49. 

X  Cicero,  Tufc.  Qncft.  i.  pag.  329. — "  From  all  thefe  opinions, 
*'  nothing  after  death  can  be  interfiling  to  any  one,  for  fenfition  is  loifc 
f*  together  with  life.** 


322  AN    IxVQTJlRY    INTO    THE         chap.xv, 

*'  vocantur,  quod  MeJylenis  fermo  habetur  :  In  qulbus  vult  ciH- 
"  cere  anirr.os  efTs  mortalcs  :  Stoici  autem  ufuram  nobis*  tan- 
'*  quam  cornicibus:  D'lu  manfuros  aiunt  animoSj  leniper  ne- 
**   ^ant*." 

Nor  were  they  otheru'ife  minded,  many  of  them  In  Greece. 
When  Socrates  vents  his  opinion  of  the  in;mortciiify  of  the 
foul  that  day  before  he  died,  Cebes,  one  of  his  difciples,  who  is 
the  conferrer,  or  one  ot  thern  at  leaft  that  m.iintains  the  dif- 
courfe  with  him,  addrelTes  him  in  thefe  words  :  *'  Socrates,  I 
**  iubfcrlbe  to  the  truth  of  iiU  you  hive  faid.  There  is  only 
**  one  thing  that  men  look  upon  as  incredible,  viz.  what  you 
**  advanced  of  the  foul :  for  alniolt  every  body  fancies,  that 
**  when  the  foul  parts  from  the  body  it  is  no  more,  it  dies  along 
**  with  it  ;  in  the  very  minute  of  parting  it  evarilfiies  like  a 
**  vapour  or  fmoke,  v.hich  flics  oit  and  oiiperfes,  and  l:as  no 
"  exigence  f." 

Yea,  Pliny,  Strabo,  and    many  otliers,   declare   againft   the 
immortality  of  the    foul  ;    nay,  Pliny  en   fct  purpole    difputes' 
againR  it  .j:. 

And  the  poets   go  the  fame  w^y.     It  v  ere  eafy  to  multiply 
proofs  of  this  from  them.     S:rncca  fpcaks  the  mind  of  many  of 
them,  t'iiough  perhaps  not  his  own.      Traj.^  Troa,  A*  I. 
Poji  mortem  7zihil  ef,   ipfaque  jnors  vAhih 
Velocis  fpatii  meia  ?ionjiJJiwa, 
^Uceris  nzio  jace.-'s  poJi  obitum  loco; 

^uo  von  mala  jacent,      Et 
Tern  pus  nos  avid  urn  de-vorat  ^  chaos  ^ 
Mors  i'idividua  cfj;   voxio  corporiy 

Nee  paycc'?js  {>7:if;ia  }l.  Pcrfius 

*  *<  Crowds  of  nppofers  come  agninil  m?,  not  only  of  the  Epic:]- 
«<  reans,  whom  indeed  I  do  n<n  defpife,  but  1  knew  roE  how 
f'  every  molt  lenrned  man  defpifes  them.  For  my  darling,  I  n  ean 
*'•  Archais,  has  difptjred  rerv  c;)gtrr!y  againft  this  immortality.  He 
*«  u  r'Ue  three  btn^k-^,  which  Jire  called  Lefbian,  hecaufe  the  dif- 
<*  coirfe  is  held  at  rviytelene,  in  which  he  endcp.vcured  to  prove  that 
<'  the  fouls  of  men  are  mc>rtaL  Bur  the  btoicks  only  give  them  a  long 
*'  life  like  the  crows, —  fh<v  fny  that  foulb  will  live  a  long  time,  but 
"  ihev  d  ?ny  that  thev  w\\\  Hve  forever." 

+  Plato's  Phedc?:  done  into  Engllfli  from  M.  Di-cier's  Tranf.  vol-  2. 
pag.  100. 

if  uweni  Tlie:.log.  Lib    i.  C.  pag.  174. 

II  "  There  is  nothing  after  death,  and  death  itfclf  is  nothing,  being 
<f  Oijly  the  hi'.t  fta^e  of  oar    fvvift    courfe.     Do  you  alk  in  what  p'acc 

"  you 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-       323 

Perfms  and  all  the  pccts  made  ufe  of  this  ss  an  encourage- 
ment to  give  way  to  themlelves,  in  whatever  Juft  prompted 
(hem  to. 

Indulge  genioj  carpamus  dzilcia  ;  niflriim  eft 
^:cd  'z-i-jusj  cinist   ^  manesy  ^  fahula  fes*. 

If  it  be  faid  that  this  is  an  irony,  and  that  he  M-as  not  in  ear- 
neP:,  it  is  eafy  to  multiply  quotations  to  this  purpcfe  from  Ho- 
race, Catullus,  and  m.cft  of  the  poets,  which  are  not  capable  of 
any  fuch  conflrud^ion.     But  I  forbear. 

And  although  Cicero  was  for  the  irr.mortality  of  the  foul  ; 
yet  in  his  fird  book  of  Tup.ulan  Qjitftions^  he  plainly  derides 
the  whole  bulinefs  of  rewards  and  punirnm.cnts  after  this  life  ; 
as  anyone  who  will  attentively  perufe  it  may  Ice.  I  forbear 
to  tranfcribe  the  pailige  ;  becaufe  I  behoved  to  tranfcribe  much 
to  fnew  the  tendency  of  the  difcourfe.  He  plainly  tells  us,  that 
he  could  be  eloquent,  if  he  had  a  mind  to  fpeak  againfl  thole 
things;  Dijhtus  efc  pojfdm,  fi  contra  ifla  dicer  cm  j".  The 
cafe  is  plainly  this  :  Th^t  perion  to  whom  he  difcourfes  looks 
on  death  as  an  evil.  Cicero  tells  him  that  perhaps  it  is  be- 
caufe  he  fears  thcfe  punilluTients  after  this  life,  which  the  vul- 
gar believed  ;  and  after  he  has  tartly  ridiculed  them,  he  con- 
cludes, That  had  he  a  mind,  he  could  enlarge  againft  thofe 
things,   and   plainly   expofc  the  whole  tradition. 

But  bscau'e  lom.e  talk  fo  much  of  Plato,  Socrates,  Cicero, 
and  we  get  fo  many  quotations  from  them  about  the  immortality 
of  the  foul  and  a  future  Oa^e  ;  1  ihali  here  reprefent  their  own 
opinion  fooiewhat  more  fully. 

As  for  Socrates,  he  has  not  M'rit  any  thing  that  is  come  to  our 
hands:  all  the  accounts  we  have  of  him  are  from  Plato,  Xeno- 
phen  and  others,  but  efpecially  Plato  his  Icho'ar,  who  was 
with  him  at  his  death  :  From  him  then  we  (hall  learn  at  once, 
what  both  his  maker's  opinion  and  his  own  v/ere  in  this  matter. 

When 

*<  you  are  to  lie  after  your  death,  in  which  evils  do  not  I'e,  and  greedy 
''time  and  chance  devours  us?  Deaih  is  a  divider,  which  hurts  ths 
«*  body  and  does  not  fpare  the  foul." 

*  '"'Indulge  your  inclination,  let  us  enjoy  pleafures;  this  fpan  of  life 
"  thzt  we  enjoy  is  ours,  you  will  foon  become  i-flies,  a  {hade  and  a 
»  fable." 

t  Tufcul.  Quell.  Lib,  i.  a  little  from  the  beginning,  pag.  ir.ihi  3?  2. 


324  AN    INQ^UIRY  |INTO     TFIE       chap.  xv. 

When  Socrates  is  inaking  bis  apology  before  bis  judges,  he 

tells  them,  "  That   to   fear  death,  is  nothing    elfe,  but   to  be- 

*'   lieve  one's  felf  to  be  wife,  v/hen  they  are  not  ;  and  to  fancy 

**  that  they  know  what  ihey  do  not  know.     In  ciFed,  no  body 

**   knows  death  ;   no  body  can  telJ,  but    it  may  be  the  treateft 

'*  benefit  of  mankind  ;  and  yet  men  are  afraid  of  it,  as  if  they 

**   knew  certainly  that  it  was  the  greatefl:  of  evils*."     And  a 

Jittle  after  fpeaking  of  death,  *'  What  !  (hould  I  be  afraid  of  the 

**  punilhment  adjudged  by    Melitus,  a   punifliment   that  I  can- 

**  not  pofitiveiy  fay  whether  it  is  good  or  evil  f  ?"  And  thus  he 

concludes   his  apology-     **  But  now,  it  is   true   we    (hor<ld   all 

**   retire  to  our   reipec^ive   offices,  you    to  live,  and    I  to  die. 

**  But  whetlier  you   or  I  are  going   upon  the  better  expedition, 

*'  it  is  known  to  none,  but  God  alone  .J  ' 

Again,  in   that  famed  difcourfe  on    this  fubje6i,  before  his 
death,  after  he  has  produced  all  the  arguments  he  can  for  (he 
inimortality  of  the  foul,  he  tells  us  pretty  plainly,  how  things 
f^ocd   with  him.     **   Convincing  the  audience  of   what   1   ad- 
**  vance,  is  not  oniy  my  aim  ;   indeed  I  Ihall  be  infinitely  glad 
"  that  it  come  to  pafs  ;   but  my  chief  fcope  is  to  perfuade   my- 
**   felf  of  the  truth  of  thefe  things  ;  for  I  argue  thus,  my  dear 
**   Phedon,  and  you  will  find  that  this  way  of  arguing  is  highly 
**   ufeful,  (very  true  to  folk  that  are  not  certain  and  can  do  no" 
**  better,  and  only   to   thei'e).     If  my  propofitions   prove    true, 
**   it  is  well  done  to  believe   them,  and  if  after  my  death  they 
**   be  found  falfe,  I  will   reap  that  advantage  in   this   life,  that 
**   1  have  been  Icfs  afflicted  by  the  evils  which  commonly  ac- 
"  company    it.     But  I  fhall  not  remain  long   under  this   igno- 
'*   ranee  §."     And   when  he  is   near   his  clofe,  and  juft  about 
(o  take  the    poifon,  or  a  little  before,  having  reprefented    his 
thoughts  about  rewards  and    punithmcnts  after  (his  life,   which 
are  little  better  than  thofe  of  the   poets,   he  concludes   his  ac- 
count in  thefe  words;   **   No   jTian   of  fenfe  can   pretend  to  af- 
**   furc  you,  that  all  thefe    things  are  jui\  as  you  have  heard. 
'*   But  all  thinking  men  will   be  pofitive,  that  the  ftate  of  the 
**  foul,  and    the   place  of  its  abode,   is   abfolutely    fuch    as   I 
*'  reprefent  it   to  be,  or  at   leafl    very  near  it," — provided   the 
foul  be  ini mortal. 
More  might  be  alleged  to  the  fame  purpofe  ;  but  this  is  fuf- 

ficient 

*  Dacier's  Plato,  Vol.   2.  pag.   2;"^.  Socrates'  Apology, 
■f  ^bid.  pag.  40.  ;-  jbid.  pag.  47. 

§  Plato's  Fhedon  pag.   ijj,   136. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       325 

ficlent  to  let  us  fee  how  wavering  Plato  and  his  mafter  Socra- 
tes were.   They  talk  confidently  Ibmetimes  ;   but  prefently  t}7ey 
fink  aaain.     Let  us  next   fee    what  Cicero's   mind   was.     He 
treats  ihls  fubjeCl  on   fet  pu.rpofe,  in  his  firfi  book  of  Tnfculan 
Quefiions^  which  is  wholly  fpent  on  this  fubje6t.     He   under- 
takes to  frew  and  prove  againft  the  perfon  whom  he  inflru6is,  that 
death  is   7wt   evil,   whether  we  are  diflolved  quite  or  not  :  and 
having,  as    he    fancies,  proven    that    death    is  not  an  evil,  he 
proceeds  and  gives   us   this  account  of  his    undertaking^-**   I 
**  (hall  teach  you,   (fpeaking  of  death)   if  I  can,  /t  pqji??:,  that 
**  it  iiot  only  not  evil,  hui  good  *."     But  a  little  after  he   tells 
us  cbarlv  what  we  may  expe<?i:  from  him,  when  his  heaver  ex- 
horts  him  to    go  on  ;  fays  he,  Geram  tibi   morem,  &  ea  qua 
vis,    ut  poteroi    explicabo :  Nee    tamen   quafi  Pythiiis  Apol/o, 
certa    ut  Jiiit,  zd  fixa  qua:  dixero :  Sed  ut  homvnculus  unus  t 
maltis  prohahtlia  conje.Burd  fequens^  ultra  enim  quo  progrediar, 
quam  ut  verifimilia   videam,  non   habeo  :  Certa  dicait  ii  qui  £3 
percipi  ea  pojfe   dicunty  &  ft  fapientcs  ej[e  projitentur  \.     And 
fpeaking  about  this  opinion,  his  auditor  tells  him,  how  pleafant 
this  is    to  him.     It  will  be  a  little  pleafant  to   hear  them  fpeak. 
A*  Me  vero  deleSat:  Idque  primu???  ita  ejfe  fJciL  ardmos  effe 
immortales  :)  Deinde  etiamfi  non  fit,  mihitainenperfuaderi  vdim» 
M,  Quid  tibi  ergo  opera  noflrd  opus  e/i?  Nam  eloquentid  Pla- 
tonem  fuperare  pojfumus?  Evolve  diligenter   ejus  turn  libriivi^ 
qui  eji  de   animo :  Amplius  quod  de/idcres  n'hil  erit.     A-   Feci 
mthercule    ^  quidan  jd^pius :  Sed  nefcio  quomodo,  dum  lego,  af- 
fentior :  Cum  pojui  librum,  &  mecum  ipfe  de  immortalitate  ani- 
niorum  ccepi  cogitare,  affentio  omnis  ilia  tiabitur  %-     After    he 
has  it=iilru6\ed  his  hearer,  he  profoiTes  his  refolution  to  (land  by 

this 
*  Pag.  325. 

+  Pag.  526. — «y^,  I  will  obey  you,  and  explain  thefe  things  that  you 
«  wi(h,  as  I  fhall  be  able.  Yet  what  I  ara  to  fay  will  not  be  certain 
«  and  fixed  like  the  oracles  of  the  Pythian  Appoilo,  but  1  will  proceed 
"  as  one  poor  man  of  the  many,  following  probabilities  by  conjecture, 
«  for  I  have  no  where  that  1  can  go  further  than  I  fee  probability. 
"  Thofe  will  i-:;.-)^  certain  things  who  fay  that  certainty  can  be  attained, 
«  and  who  profefs  to  be  wife  men." 

X  Pag,  329.— "^y.  Bjt  it  pleafes  me,  and  this  firfl,  that  fo  is  the  cafe, 
«  (to  wit,  that  the  fouls  of  men  are  immortal)  and  then  although  it 
«  (hould  not  be  fo,  yet  I  wiih  to  be  perfuaded  of  it,  M.  What  need 
"  have  you  then  of  our  fervice  ?  Can  we  excel  Plato  in  eloquence? 
«  Turnover  diligently  that  book  of  his,  which  treats  of  the  foul,  yea 

"  will 


326  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE         chap. 


XV 


this  opinion,  but  gets  a  caution  from  his  inflruftcr,  that  lets  us 
iee  liow  things  Rand.  //.  Nemo  me  de  immortalitate.  depdkt. 
M,  anlvvers,  Laudo  id  quidein^  et Ji  nihil  nimis  oporttt  conftdat ; 
Movcmur  enim  /Icpc  aliqiio  acute  condufo :  Labamus  miitamuf- 
cjye  ftnrentiam  clariorihus  etiam  in  rebus:  In  his  enim  ejl  ahqua 
ohfcuritas*.  And  If  ye  would  know  what  his  reaibn  was  for 
inriiting  fo  long  on  the  proof  of  this,  he  tells  us  near  the  clofe, 
't  hat  it  was  to  bimirn  the  contrary  fufpicion,  which  was  trou- 
Mefome.  Much  more  might  be  adduced,  but  what  has  been 
fald  fuhSciently  derDonOrates  how  fluctuating  and  uncertain  the 
beR  of  them  were,  in  reference  to  this  importaut  point. 

if  any  fhall  fay,  tlKit  though  thefe  great  men  upon  feme  oc^ 
crJions,  expreiTed  themfelves  with  fonie  hefiratlon,  and  did  infi- 
nuate  fomc  fufpicion  that  the  oppofite  part  of  the  quefiion  might 
be  true,  yet  upon  other  occafions  they  are  pofitive,  and  that  this 
is  as  good  an  evidence  oftheirbeing  firmly  perfuaded,  as  the  o- 
thercxprefTions  are  of  iheir  hefitation.  lanfwer,  the  confequence 
is  naught.  A  ft!«ming  pofvivenefs  upon  fome  occaiions,  may 
be  the  refuh  of  the  joint  influence  of  a  Itrong  defire,  that  the 
thing  (hould  be  true,  and  fome  philofopbical  quirk  urged  for 
its  fupport:  For  as  Cicero  well  obferves  in  the  words  laft  quo- 
ted, Moveinur  fipe  aliquo  acute  condufo;  and  this  efpecially 
holds  true,  where  there  is  a  flrong  inclination  to  believe  the- 
thing,  as  being  of  obvious  advantage  to  us.  Now  this  may 
be,  where  there  Is  no  certainty  or  firm  perfuafion.  I  readily 
own  that  thcfe  great  men  favoured  the  immortality  of  the  i'oul : 
Bat  I  pofitively  deny,  that  they  received  it  with  that  firmnefs 
of  ailent,  that  is  not  only  due,  but  unavoidable,  to  truths  which 
carry  their  own  evidence  along  with  them.  And  1  moreover 
a\er,  that  the  Dcifls,  in  q-uOtlng  fome  of  thefe  affertions  from 
th'^m,  wherein  they  feeni  pohtive,  fuppreffing  other  exprcffions, 
wherein  they  difcover  a  hefitation,  da  but  abufe  the  reader's 
credulity  ;  and  give  neither  a  full  nor  fair  account  of  the  judg- 
ment of  thefe  men.  CHAP 

«  will  Gcfire  nothing  more  on  the  fubje(^.  J.  Indeed  I  have  done  To, 
f<  and  cfrencr  than  once,  but  1  knov/  not  how  it  is,  I  alTent  as  long  as 
<'  I  am  readii^^;,  but  when  I  have  b.id  down  the  book  and  begin  to 
t«  think  '.vith  mvfclfofthe  immortality  of  fouU,  all  that  affent  va.iliht-s." 
*  ♦*]Sjone  fhail  drive  rne  from  my  bclict'  of  imn^ortalirv.  M.  I 
<•  commend  that  indeed,  ahhougli  we  ought  not  to  be  too  fure  of  a^y 
f  thing,  for  we  arc  often  determined  by  foraeihing  that  is  acutely  con- 
'»'  chKiei.i ,  yet  auerwards  wc  give  way  and  change  our  opinions  even 
"  in  thi  :^^..  that  are  dearer,  for  there  is  fome  obrcuiiiy  iw  ihofe  tuio^ii  " 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      327 


CHAP.      XVI. 

Wbnein  fome.  general  conjiderations  are  laid  do:vnfvr  proving 
that  many  cf  the  heji  things,  zuhich  are  to  be  met  ziitk  in  the 
Heathens f  were  not  the  difcoveries  of  Nature  s  Light ,  hut 
cams  J  ram  Tradition* 

NOTWITHSTANDING  the  grofs  ignorance,  which  over- 
fpread  the  Heathen  world,  was  very  great  ;  yet  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  there  are  very  many  furprifing  hints  of  truth 
to  be  found,  in  many  of  their  writings,  in  reference  even  to 
matters  of  religion. 

The  DeiQs  take  up  whatever  tli^y  meet  with  of  this  fort,  and 
confidently  give  it  out,  That  all  this  they  difcovered  by  the 
mere  light  of  nature. 

There  are  who,  on  the  other  hand,  will  fcarce  allow  them 
to  have  made  any  of  thofe  difcoveries  by  the  light  of  nature; 
but  afcribe  whatever  hints  of  truth  are  to  be  met  with,  to  tradi- 
tion*  This  is  faid  to  be  the  opinion  of  Eufebius  and  Scaliger, 
by  Dr.  O^ven  *.  And  it  is  of  late  maintained  by  Mr,  Nicclh, 
the  ingenious  author  of  the  Conference  with  a  Iheifi^,  For 
which  Mr.  Becconfal,  the  author  of  a  late  treatife  concerning 
the  Lazo  of  Nature^  is  much  difpleafed  with  him,  and  takes 
him  to  tafk  %» 

I  defign  not  to  mal^e  myfelf  a  party  in  this  debate,  I  think 
that  there  is  fom.ewhat  cf  truth  on  both  fides :  But  if  either 
think  to  carry  the  matter  to  the  utmoQ,  I  think  alfo  there  will 
he  miilakes  on  both  hands.  It  is  too  much  to  fay  that  they 
discovered  nothing  in  reference  to  religion  by  the  mere  light  of 
nat;ire:  And  on  the  other  hand  it  favours  of  grofs  ignorance 
to  fay  that  all  we  meet  with  in  the  v/ritings  of  the  ancient  fager, 
was  difcovered  by  the  light  of  nature.  Nothing  is  more  evident, 
than  that  many  things  have  been  banded  from  nation  to  nation, 
and  from  age  to  age,  by  tradition.  This  no  modeft  man  will 
or  can  deny  ;   it   has  been   fo  clearly    m^de  out  by  many. 

V/hat 

*  Thcol.  Lib.  I.  C.  Z.  Parag.  4. 

f  Confer.  Part  2.  pag.  32,  35,  &c. 

:;  Beccon.  of  the  Law  of  Nature,  C.  4.  '^?.-^.  54,  55.  &;. 


323  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE        chap.  xvi. 

What  I  affert,  and  {Vjall  attempt  to  prove,  is,  **  That  ma- 
nv  of  the  moft  notable  things  that  we  meet  with  in  the  Hea- 
then writers,  in  matters  of  religion,  are  nOt  to  be  looked  on  as 
difcovertes  made  by  the  light  of  nature  ;  but  as  truths,  where- 
of they  were  informed  by  tradition.  And  moreover,  that  when 
we  find  them  alTerting  fome  of  thofe  truths,  which  to  us  who 
enjoy  the  fcripturcs,  and  by  the  fcriptures  have  our  reafon  im- 
proven,  appear  to  have  a  foundation  in  reafon,  we  are  not  there- 
fore to  conclude,  th^t  reafon  led  them  to  thofe  truths;  but  ra- 
ther, that  in  many  cafes  they  had  even  thefe  from  tradition,''* 

In  proving  this  point,  I  ftiall  not  proceed  by  fingle  inibn- 
ces,  but  (hall  lay  down  thefe  general  confiderations,  which  at 
once  clear  the  truth  of  oar  affertion,  and  difcover  whence  thefe 
traditions  might  com3,  and  how  eafily  they  might  be  conveyed 
to  them.  Particular  inftances  may  be  had  in  great  abundance 
from  thofe  who  have,  of  fet  purpofe,  largely  iaiiiled  on  th^is 
fubject.  Amongfl  others,  Huetius,  in  his  D^imonjlratio  Evan- 
gdica,  has  largely  diicourfed  of  particular  inftances  of  this  na- 
ture. I  think  the  following  obfervations  taken  together  and 
duly  confidered,  will  put  our  allertion  beyond  quelHon  with 
the  fober  and  judicious. 

1.  It  is  moft  certain,  that  the  Jews,  however  in  other  regards 
inconfiderable,  which  makes  it  dill  the  more  obfervable,  had 
more  fall,  clear,  and  certain  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  re- 
ligion, and  matters  of  worlhip,  than  all  the  world  befides.  If 
th^  D^^iQs  pleale  to  controvert  this  propofilion,  we  thai  I  debate 
it  with  them  when  they  pleafe.  And  I  dare  be  bold  to^  fay, 
that  1  Ihall  prove,  that  there  is  more  true  and  rational  dlviriity  in 
one  QiiX.'ci^  hooks  of  Mofts",  than  they  ihall  be  able  to  find  in 
all  the  Heathen  zuriters,  when  they  put  all  that  has  been  faid 
by  all  of  them  together. 

2.  Their  neighbours,  and  more  efpecially  the  Egyptians, 
had  many  fair  occafions  of  obtaining  acquaintance  with  their 
opinions  and  prac\lces  in  matters  of  relgion.  Several  p-rlons 
at  diflant  times,  went  out  from  the  church  and  fettled  i  i  dif- 
tant  nations,  llbmael  went  out  from  Abraham's  family,  and 
Efau  from  that  of  Ifaac.  Now  it  cannot  be  fuppofed,  how 
wicked  foever  thefe  perfons  were,  but  they  would  carry  out 
with  them  ibme  (rue  notions,  opinions  and  praCiices,  in  maliers 
of  religion.  Nor  can  it  reafonably  be  denied,  that  they  found- 
ed then-  new  government  on  fome  of  thefe  notices,  thout'h  yari- 
ouav  blended  and  mixt  with  corrupt  additions  and  alterations, 

^  both 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        329 

hotU  in  matters  of  opir.ion  and  practice.  And  it  is  evident,  that 
thci^  hints,  or  remainders  of  truth,  in  n>atters  of  opinion  and 
practice,  as  they  were  mixt  with  thefe  corruptions,  would  ob- 
tain a  general  and  great  refpecSt,  as  being  found  ufeful  for 
maintaining  order  in  focieties,  as  being  delivered  to  them  by 
the  iirft  founders  of  their  nations,  as  being  commended  by  their 
pra6tice,  and  perhaps  eilabiiined  by  laws  and  conRitutions. 
Whence  it  is  not  pofiibly  to  be  fuppofed  that  thefe  notices  or 
praclices  would  in  an  age,  or  a  few  ages  wear  out. 

Again,  it  is  particularly  obfervable  in  this  cafe,  that  the 
church  was,  for  a  long  tra6i  of  time,  in  a  wandering  and  un- 
fettled  ftate  ;  which  obliged  them  to  more  of  intimacy  with  the 
nations  that  lay  near  them,  than  afterwards  was  neceOary ,  when 
they  fettled  in  a  land  by  themifelves  apart,  and  were,  by  divine 
conl^itutions,  barred  from   that  familiarity. 

Moreover,  as  to  th.e  Egytians,  they  had  much  occafion  of 
being  particularly  acquainted  with  the  Jews'  opinions  and  prac- 
tices in  the  matters  of  God.  The  Ifraelitcs  dwelt  among  them 
(befides  what  occafional  converfe  they  had  before)  about  217 
years  together.  The  correfpondence  was  again  renewed  in  So- 
lomon's time,  by  bis  matching  with  the  king* of  Egypt's  daugh- 
ter. Jeremiah,  and  a  great  company  with  him,  ftaid  a  conii- 
derable  tim.e  in  Egypt,  and  prophefied  there  to  the  Jews,  who 
had  at  that  time  no  feparate  dwellings,  and  prophefied  concern- 
ing Egypt  ;  which,  together  with  the  reputation  he  had  got  at 
Jerufalem,  by  his  predictions  that  were  remarkably  verified, 
the  notice  taken  of  him  by  thp  king  of  Babylon,  and  the  con- 
tefls  he  had  with  thofe  of  his  own  nation,  could  not  but  make 
him  much  regarded. 

It  is  further  confiderable,  that  there  were  many  things,  which 
may  reafonably  be  fuppofed  to  excite  an  uncommon  curiofity  in 
the  Egyptians,  to  unierRand  the  religion  of  the  Jews.  It  is 
known  v/hat  a  place  Jofeph  long  had  in  Egypt,  and  how  he 
managed  it.  Afterwards  the  people,  while  under  bondage, 
were  fcattered  through  the  land,  and  the  piety  of  fomc  of  them 
appearing  in  their  fuiferings,  could  not  but  be  taken  notice  of, 
as  their  feathering  through  the  land,  gave  occafion  to  the  E- 
gyptians  to  inquire,  as  to  the  principles  that  influenced  it. 
Uhe  miraculous  appearances  of  God  on  behalf  of  that  peo- 
ple in  Egypt  and  its  neighbourhood,  in  the  wildernefs,  would 
have  excited  ths  curlofity  of  a  people,  much  lefs  inquifitive 
than  they  were.     The  reputation  of  Solomon,  bis  alliance  with 

S  s  the 


330  AN    INdUIllY    INTO    THE        chap.  xvr. 

tlic  crown  of  Egypt,  c^nd  his  traffck  with  them,  as  they  gave 
a  new  occahon,  lo  ccold  not  hut  ipiir  them  on  to  inquire  fur- 
ther into  matters  cf  this  ("ori.  If  to  all  this  you  add  the  general 
character  writers  of  all  forts  give  to  the  Egypsians,  That  thev 
were  a  people  more  tl^an  ordinarily  fond  about  matters  of  reli- 
gion, infcmuch  that  our  author  Herbert  obfei  ves,  that  they  are 
Wid  to  be  the  firit  tliiii  taught  religion*;  and  if  further  it  is  con- 
fidered,  that  the  Gentiles,  finding  the  unfatisfat^tojinels  of  their 
own  opinions  and  praifliccs,  v/ere  very  much  inclined  to  change, 
and  adopt  the  cufiotns,  practices,  and  way  of  every  naiion  in 
matters  ©f  religion,  to  try  if  they  could  find  any  thine  rr.ore  f?.- 
tisfying  than  their  own  ; — if,  I  fav,  all  tljefe  are  laid  together, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  neighbouring  nations,  and  parti- 
cularly the  Egypjianb,  learned  many  things* from  the  Jews  in 
matters  of  religion. 

3,  It  is  obfervable,  that  all  thefe  things  fell  out  a  confidera- 
ble  tiiTie  before  any  of  thofe  great  men  appeared  or  tiouriihed 
in  the  V.  orld,  whofe  writings  are  come  to  us,  and  contain  ihefc 
truths,  concerning  the  rile  whereof  we  now  difccurfe. 

The  [cv!^n  fages,  i  hales.  Solon,  PittscuS;  Bias,  Chllo,  Pe- 
ri'inder,  and  Cleobulus,  who  raifed  the  reputation  of  Greece, 
did  not  tlcurilh  till  about  the  time  of  the  Babvlonilli  captivity, 
and  long  after  the  difpei  non  of  the  Ten  Tribes  ;  feme  do  reck- 
on it  l23yL:''rst.  Socrates  and  Plato  flcuriilicd  net  for  near 
150  .years  after  thefe  again.  Now  thefe  are  among  the  firft 
who  made  any  confiderable  figure  for  learning  of  this  icri  in 
the  Heathen  world,   wliofc  v/rilin;^3  are  come  to  us. 

4,  All  thefe  great  men  did,  forth'.irown  improverrent^  tra- 
vel into  foreign  nations,  and  made  it  their  bunnefs  to  learn  their 
opinions  and  practices.  Particularly  we  are  told  of  the  mofi 
canfiderable  of  them  by  Diogenes  Laertius  and  others,  That 
they  were  very  concerned  to  know  the  opinios.s  of  the  Egyptian 
piie0.sin  matters  of  religiof,  and  moil  of  ivhat  they  knew  in 
thefe  matters  was  taught  them  by  thofe-  This  Vv'ill  be  denied 
b}''  none,  that  is  acquainted  widithe  lives  of  thofe  perfcns. 

5,  it  is  further  obfervable,  that  in  many  inOances  there  is 
fuch  a  plain  ref'^mbhince  in  iheir  opinions  to  the  icripture  ac- 
counts of  tlie  origin  of  the  zuorUIj  the  deluge,  the  peopling  cj  the 
earth,  and  mofl  other  thip«»s,  as  could  net  be  cafual  ;  but  Oiews 
plainly  that  tliey  were  derived  thence.      This  in  particular  in- 

f.nnces 
*   De  Relio;.  GenC  pag.  ?. 
T  Le  Clerk  Coaipui.  Hilt.  pag.  35,  40. 


PRI>:CIPLES  O^-^  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       q^i 

iUnces  bv  rranv,  particulr.rly  [luetius  and  ofbers,  to  ^vliorr  he 
refers,  is  fo  fjUy  dcnionft  ated,  that  it  cafinoi,  without  inanifeft 
impudence,   be  «lcnied. 

6.  What  cones  yet  rorrjcvhat  nearer  io  our  purpofc,  it  is 
very  obfervablc  e*/en  as  to  thofe  truths,  which  ha^'C  lome  foun- 
dation in  rea{on,^fiich  as  thcle,  about  the  immortality  of  the 
fouls  of  men,  and  their  ftate  after  dfa^h,  and  the  like,  that 
thofc  great  men  of  oid  propofed  them  commoniv,  without  oflcr- 
ing  any  proof  of  them,  or  any  rejfons  for  them.  Now  it  is 
not  creditile  that,  if  they  had  been  Jed  to  thofe  notices  by 
reafon,  they  would  have  offer«-^d  thofe  important  truths,  without 
osfering  reafons  of  them.  This  obfervatian  we  find  m.ade,  as 
to  its  lubftance,  thobp;h  not  on  fuch  views,  by  no  lefs  a  prfrfon 
than  Cicero,  v./ho  knew  as  vveli  how  maiters  then  i^ocd,  to 
fpeak  modeiUy,  as  an  •  now  ca-J  do.  Speaking  of  ihe  imn'fOrtali- 
ty  of  the  foul,  and  rhi^  ancient  ohilolophers*  fcTiiiinen^s  abou^t 
it,  he  lavs,  ^^  Sed  r^deo  ad  antiquos-  Rntionem  iili  /ententie 
**  fus  non  fere  reddoant  niji  quid  trat  numeris  ant  dtjcnp  ion- 
**  \bus  explicandum—h' I atonem  Jerunt  primum  de  animorum 
'^  ''Itrnitate  non  foluvi  fenplj e  ideni^  quod  Pythagoras :  fed  ration- 
**  em  ttiam  attuli/[e  *.' 

■y.  Nor  is  it  lels  confsderable  to  prove,  thnt  the  notions, 
which  prevailed  about  \\\t  imir-ortahiv  of  the  foul,  and  a  future 
ftate,  (and  the  like  mav  be  faid  of  mar^y  otlieis)  were  not 
learned  from  reafon^  but  from  tradition  ;  and  tliat  the  impreffion 
and  perfuafion  of  thefe  trutiis  wjre  more  generally  entertained, 
and  more  (Irongly  r-vttcd  among  the  vulgar  than  among  the 
philofophers.  Whole*  Ihoals  (;f  them^  cy  Cat^rv^i  as  Cicero  a- 
bove  quoted  fpeaks,  denieil  and  derid^'d  ail  thefe  things,  which 
the  vulgar  nrmiy  believed.  This  obfervation  1  find  made  by  the 
ItdiYnQd  Dr.  Owen,  **  fCun  inundi  conditu  j  udiciu  m  poti  haw:  vi' 
*'  taniexe.rcendum.fama'n  cathohcam.  obtinuit  Earn  diara  perfua- 
^\fionem  ccmitita  eji  immortalitatis  anrmarum  pr^jiimptio^  qu<s 
**  quamvis  ratioai  etiam  innitatur,  tamert   cum   niaxirm  ftriiptr 

*'  a  pud 

*  f'  Btit  I  renirn  fo  r'e  ancients.  They  cGrr,n:;c'.J7  did  not  give  a 
<'   realb.i  for  their  opinion,  unlcTs  when  ai»y  thi-ig  was  to  be    orpiain- 

<'  ed  by  numbers  or  ngares. rhey  fsy  thai  I'iato  was  the  nril  who 

"  not  only  was  of  the  fame  opinion  with  Pyihaj^oras  concerning  the 
<*  iaimortaiity  of  the  foul,  bat  vvho  likewife  a'.idiiced  a  reafoii  for  it.'* 

T  «'  Thai:  with  the  end  of  che  world  thsre  was  to  be  a  jadguient  after 
<*  this  life,  had  agencial  fa-ViC,  and  a  prcfi.nption  of  the  imaiorrality 

'<  of 


332  AN   INCLUIRY    INTO    THE        chap.  xvi. 

**  apud  vuIguSf  potius   quam  'ooZas  oblinuit,  non  niji  traditioni 
**  0dJcTi\}endcu  tjl^' 

8.  When  thcfe  great  men  of  old  do  give  reafons  of  their  o- 
pinions,  they  ar«  fuch,  as  any  one  may  iee,  never  led  them  to 
thefe  opinions:  but  having,  by  tradition  received  them,  theywere 
atliamed  to  ho'd  them,  without  being  capable  to  give  any  reafon 
for  what  thev  held,  and  tlierefore,  they  fet  their  wits  on  the 
rack  to  find  out  what  to  fay  for  them.  And  it  was  but  feldom 
they  hit  on  the  true  ones.  For  moil  part  their  reafonings  are 
plainly  childidi,  trifling  and  fophiftical.  It  were  eafy  to  de- 
monf^rate  this.  As  to  the  arguments  of  Socrates  and  Plato  for 
the  immortality  of  the  foul,  they  are  plain  fophifms :  and  upon 
what  defign  they  were  urged,  we  have  heard  before,  viz.  to 
confirm  thcmfelves  in  an  opinion,  the  belief  whereof  was  ac- 
companied with  fome  advantage.  A  learned  perfon  fays  jultly, 
**  That  Pbto  endeavours  to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  foul  by 
*'  fuch  reafon^>,as5if  they  conclude  any  thing,  would  conclude  it 
•*   to  be  a  God*."  And  ihe  fame  maybe  (iiid  of  Cicero  and  others. 

9.  It  is  moreover  remarkable,  to  this  purpofe,  that  not  only 
are  there  are  many  things  to  be  met  with  in  the  writings  and 
pra6tices  of  the  ancient  writers  amonft  the  Heathens,  whereof 
no  colourable  reafon  can  be  given,  nor  any  account  m.ade,  o- 
therwifc  than  by  afcribing  them  to  ancient  ana  corrupted  tradi-" 
tions  ;  but  further,  that  they  knew  not  how  to  manage  or  im- 
prove thofe  hints,  w'liich  were  this  way  handed  to  them. 
Moll  of  tliem  quite  fpoil  thcfe  things  in  the  telling.  A  few  of 
the  more  wiA?,  confcious  of  their  own  ignorance,  yet  wanting 
humility  and  ingenuity  enough  to  acknowledge  it,  wrap  tJiem- 
fclves  in  clouds,  and  exprefs  themfelves  darkly,  to  conceal 
their  own  ignorance  from  the  vulgar;  and  one  that  underilands, 
wfoujd  not  know  whether  to  laugh  or  be  angry,  to  fee  their  fond 
admirers,  ip  later  ages,  fweati.ng  to  fetch  fublime  meanings 
from  words  which  the  writers  themfelves   really  underftood  not. 

10.  In  tise  lart  place,  we  find  the  ancients  themfelves,  on 
fome  occafionS)  ozuning,  that  they  owed  the  firfl  difcoveries  of 
thcfe  things  to  tradition.  Dacier  in  the  life  of  Plato,  tells  us, 
**  That  he  firfl  inilructs  them  in  religion,  about  which  he  efia- 

''  blhhes 

'<  of  fonis  accompanied  this  pc^rfiiafion,  which  akhougb  it  is  f-ipported 
^'  by  reafon,  yet    as   it  has  always  prevailed   moil  among  the  vufyar, 
**  raiher  than  amono;  philofophers,  can  only  be  afcribed  to  tradition." 
*  Dr.  How's  Liv'ing  Tcrnple,   Parr  i,  pa^.  122. 


P^lNCJPLliS  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       333 

*<  biiihes  nothing,  without  having  confulted  God  ;  that  is,  no- 
♦*  thing  but  what  is  conformable  to  true  tradition  and  ancient 
''  orac/fs*."  To  evince  the  truth  of  this,  Plato's  own  words 
are  fuojoined,  "  God,  (faith  Piato)  as  we  are  taught  by  an- 
**  cient  tradition  J  having  in  himfelf  the  beginning,  the  middle 
"  and  end  of  all  things,  always  goes  on  in  his  way,  according 
*♦  to  his  nature,  without  ever  ftepping  afide  ;  he  is  followed  by 
**  j7^''/^<:^,vvhich  never  fails  to  punitTi  the  tranfgreffions  committed 
**  agaiuR  his  iawf/'  And  a  little  after  fpea king  about  the 
punllhments  of  the  wicked,  he  proceeds  thus,  **  They  are  not 
*<  limited  to  the  miferies  of  this  life,  nor  to  death  itfelf,  from 
"  which  even  good  men  are  not  exempt;  for  thele  are  penalties 
'*  too  light  and  Ihort,  but  they  are  horrible  torments."  i3ut 
yet  more  remarkable  to  this  purpofe  are  his  words  in  his  epil- 
ties,  *'  A/ittquis  vero  fact  if q  ;  fermonibus  fides  fe?nper  hahenda^ 
*'  qui  declarant  animum  nobis  e/fe  i?nmortalem,  etjudices  habere ^ 
*'  quorum  dtcretis,  pro  merit 0  pr '  mia  et  fupplicia  maxima  atin- 
**  baantiir,  iit  primum  gais  e  corpore  dccejferit  |." 

Lay  thele  things  together,  and  as  they  are  in  themfelves  evi- 
dent enough:  lo  1  think  they  amount  to  a  full  demonftration  of 
the  aflertion,  we  have  above  laid  down,  for  the  proof  whereof 
we  adduced  them;  and  they  do  abundantly  (liew,  how  inconfi- 
derately  every  thing  met  with  in  ancient  writers  is,  put  upon 
the  fcore  of  nature  s  light » 

CHAP.       XVII. 

Wherein  we  con/ider  what  Herbert's  opinion  was  as  to  the  fuffi- 
ciency  of  his  Articles,  and  offer  fame  refeElions<>fnewing  how 
foolifi,  abfurd  and  ridiculous  the  Deifts'  pretences  to  thzir 
fuffictency  are. 

E  have  now  demonfirated  that  thefe  five  articles  did 
not  univerfally  obtain  in  the  world,  and  that  conle- 
quently  the  Heathen  world  had  not  the  means  necejjary  tofalva- 
tion* 

But 
*  Life  of  Plaro,  pag.  8(5.  +  Plato  de  LigioLis,  Lib.  4. 

'  %  Piato,  Epiit.  7. — «♦  But  cre^^it  ought  ahvays  to  be  givrn  to  ancient 
"  and  facfed  fpeeches,  which  declare  that  our  ibuls  arc  innmortal,  nnd 
*«  that  thefc  are  judges  by  whofe  fentences  great  revv:n  "  n- 

«'  meats. are  to  be  diilributed  according  to  merit,  as  1  -i 

«  have  left  the  body," 


^34  AN    INCVJIRY    INTO   THE       chap.  xvii. 

But  flioird  v/e  grant  what  has  been  above  proved  to  be  falle, 
viz.  That  ihci'e  articles  did  univtr [ally  obtain \  yet  all  is  not 
dane,  nor  is  the  dilficulty  To  got  over  ;  for  we  are  not  agreed, 
that  thel'e,  though  acknowledged,  are  alone  [undent. 

We  know  our  author  would  have  us  to  believe,  that  they 
are  iuRicient.  He  tells  us  to  this  purpole,  that  when  he  had 
fLvjrid  them  oi;t,.  he  fa"'  that  there  was  nothing  wanting  to  trake 
a  comp'ete  reJi^i'?n  Ouiim  ka/lei^^tiur  eximias  veiitates  feorfim 
parajfem^  difquifi-.i  porro,  quid  hifce  adjecerint,  vel  quidcni  ad-i 
■jiceie  poJJintja^erdot'S,  unde  certxor  fidei  cerca  fa  lutein  ^  ternam 
daretur  norma,  ciut  vit  •  intezfi'^is  fantlito.fq',  magis  promovere- 
tiir,  aut  communis  ii'''ique  llalnliretur  Concordia  Videbam  jaiis 
aha  aU}iie  aha  hic  a  idi  poff^.,  qmn  tt  additafuiffe.  ;  Jed  q^*."  vcri- 
fates  hajce  objlruercnt,  ene^virenlqiif.  potms,  quam  vim  roburque 
iilis  conciliariint*.  t\ud  indeed  our  author  is  lb  bold  as  to  chal- 
lenge all  the  world  to  Oicvv  what  can  be  added  to  thele  five  ar- 
ticles. Vt  xidp.r^nrinterea  antiftites^  pr  ftilrj'q  ;  per  tottm  orbein 
d>ffvf}i  qu'dliife  q-iinq:  Artiruti.^,  add^rc  potuerint  :  Unde  ve- 
ra ilia  virtus,  qua  ko mines  Deo  fi miles,  confortioque  ejus  dignoi 
ejfi.iit;  vel  pie'as,  puritai  fanEiitafq  vit'"  magis  promoveri  pof- 
fiiit\.  And  gro  .  ii;g  [\u\  bolder  by  this  imaginary  fucceis,  he 
proceeds  lo  inveior}i,  fh  ragh  more  covei'tly,  againii  x\i^  JatisJ ac- 
tion oj  Chrif}.,  as  deitru^live  to  piety  Of  which  he  give*  a  mo(l ' 
diGngenuous  account,  as  commonly  he  docs  of  all  the  articles 
of  revealed  religion,  u'hich  he  has  occafion  to  mention. 

But  however  co  fident  our  autlior  is,  of  the  rilhcieacy  of  his 
five  articles  in  this  place;  yet  elfeivhere  he  fhev/s  he  had  not 
overmuch  certainty  in  his  own  mind,  about  this  rnatter  :  For 
fo'iTe  piges  after,  he  fays,  Et  qtiukm  qidnque  hofce  Jrttci!hs 
hnosj  cuiLoUcofqu(i  eije  unufqmfq  ;  DtthJo  procul  fateb'itur  ;  id  fa^ 

lutcm 

"  *»  Wlr^r;  therefore  I  Iv-fd  got  thefe  excellent  trurhs  by  themfelvej,  I 
<*  next  iT.pairod  what  prieih  had  added,  or  could  add  to  thefe,  vyhere',:y 
f*  they  might  b?  a  furer  guide  of  our  faith  concerning  eternal  I'alvaiion, 
•*  or  integrity  and  faniStity  of  life  more  promoted,  or  cosTiraon  concord 
**  e*labliihed  every  where.  I  faw  well  enough  that  ditFerent  things 
<*  might  be  added, nay  had  been  added  to  them, but  fuch  as  rather  obltrnc- 
«*  ted  and  enervated  thefe  truths,  tlian  gave  tht":!!!!  any  force  or  lirength.'* 

+  "  — That  the  priefts  and  biihops,fcattered  over  the  whole  world, 
"  mijiht  fee  in  the  mean  time,  wha'r  they  could  add  to  thet'e  five  ar- 
**  tides  ;  or  by  what  means  that  true  virtue,  which  renders  men  like 
"  to  God,  and  worthy  of  his  tellovvihip,  or  by  v.hich  piet;,  pUiU/ 
"  i».nd  fanclif)'  of  iiie,  can  be  more  proinoted." 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODEUN  DEISTS.      335 

lutem  tarnen  aternam  cornparandam  mn  fufficere  prohlhehiint  non 
nuU'i,  caterurriy  qui  Ita  hcuius  fusrity  ne  ilk  quidnn  at'dax  ;  nedum 
f.n)um  ternerariumq  ;  effcitern  (meafintsntia)  protukrit ;  quurn  nuUi 
fails  explorata  fint  Judicia  Divina  ;  quam  etium  ob  caiifajn,  nequeea 
fufficere  protenus  dixerim:  atiamcn  mcigls  prohdilh  mihi  vldeiiir 
eorum  opinio ^  qui  £qeu  pie  ac  knlttr  at  Dei  Judiclls  Jlctuunty  dum 
homo,  quod  In  Ce  eft,  pncfiat ;  neque  enim  in  cujufve  pot ''ji ate  eft, 
ut  fides  free  tradltiones  c^uantumvls  laxs  (pr^fertlm  ubl  aUqua  ex 
parte  coniroveriuntur)  ad  fe  fatis  pei'thigiint,  neque  tandem  recia 
conimimlq ;  rat  lone  aulnq  ;  Jlrtlcuils  nojtrls  addi  potefi  dogma , 
unde  magis  pH,  fincerlque  evadunt  Imnlnes ;  aut  pax,  ccncordlaq 'y 
publlca  Tiiagls prornoveatur* '     Here  our  author  is  more  modeft. 

Thus  we  have  feen  what  his  opinion  is;  it  now  remains  tbvt 
we  offer  iboie  re{le<5\ions  on  it.  Many  oflcr  thcmfclves:  1  Ihall 
only  touch  at  a  itvj» 

I.  1  hough  the  Deifts  are  as  defirous  as  any,  to  confine  re- 
ligion (o  a  narrow  compafs,  and  perhaps  it  is  as  much  their  in- 
lereil,  as  it  is  of  any  fort  of  men,  that  it  finculd  confift  of  fev/ 
articles  ;  yet,  for  ftiame,  they  cannot  make  it  contain  lefs,  than 
thofe  five  articles.  Tliey  own,  and  mull  own  all  thole  necelTary 
to  falvation,  both  in  belief  and  pra6llce.  It  is  not  pcfiible, 
they  themfelves  being  judges,  to  reach  the  ends  of  religion,  if 
any  of  them  are  cut  off.  Since  then  we  have  above  proved  that 
thefe  did  not  univerfally  obtt»in,  it  is  plain,  that  all  mankind 
had  r.oK  fujficient  knGivledge  of  religion^     Thus  it  is  in  fafi. 

But  now  where  fiiail  the  blame  of  this  be  laid  ?  On  them- 
felves?  On  the  crieils  ?  Or  on  God  ?  This  lafl  cannot  be  faid. 

Weil 

*  <<  And  indeed  every  one  will  doubtleis  con feff,  that  thefe  five  lirti. 
«  cles  are  good  and  catholic; yet  forae  will  think  the)-  are  not  fufTicient 
"  for  attaining  eternal  life.  But  whoever  would  fav  fc,  would  be  guilty 
*'  of  uttering  not  only  ahold,  not  to  fay  a  cruel-and  jabitrary  fcntence, 
"  in  ir.y  opinion,  as  the  Divine  judgments  are  not  fuiriciently  known 
"  to  any  one  j  for  which  reafon  likewife,  neither  would  Ipofjtiveiy  af. 
*'  firm  that  they  were  fufiitienr.  Yet  the  opinion  of  thofe  feeins  to  be 
•<  the  nx)re  probable,  who  judge  equitably,  pioufly  and  mildly  of  the 
**  Divine  judgments,  while  a  ivaw  does  what  depends  on  him ;  for  it  is  not 
"  in  the  power  of  every  one,  that  Faiths  or  Traditions,  however  lax, 
**  (efccciaily  when  they  are  any  where  controverted}  (hould  fufilcienriy 
"  extend  to  him;  nor  in  line,  can  any  doctrine  be  added  to  cur  five  arri- 
*'  cle*-  by  right  and  common  re r.ibn,  wherf  by  i"nen  n":ay  hecoire  roove' 
*<  pious  and  finccre,  or  peace  and  pubhc  concord  may  bv  T..i-e  -^rj- 
*<  rnctsd." 


336  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE       ckap.  xvn. 

Well  ihcn,  niuft  tbefe  villains  of  prieOs,  with  whom  our 
author  and  ail  the  fucceedlng  Deills  are  io  angry,  bear  the 
biame  of  it,  in  that  they  did  not  better  teach  and  infiru6t  the 
people,  in  the  grounds  of  /in  cere  religion?  But  though  our  au- 
thor, and  all  the  Deifls,  would  fain  lodge  the  blame  here  ;  yet 
I  am  fcarce  fatisfied  of  the  juftice  of  the  charge  ;  (though  I  am 
willing  to  own,  that  they  were  for  the  moil;  part  arch-viiiains) 
for  how  lliall  it  be  made  appear  that  they  theuifelves  knew  the 
grounds  of  fincere  religion  ?  I  know  our  author  blames  them 
for  not  imparting  the  knowledge  of  fincere  religion  to  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  that  he  may  be  fure  to  Hiut  the  door  upon  them  that 
they  may  not  efcape,  he  adds  by  way  of  parenthefis,  licet  illis 
fitis  cognitam  *.  But  how  proves  he  this,  that  they  knew  that 
chajie  and  fincere  religion  well  enough  ?  Might  not  they  be  fup- 
poied  ignorant  of  it,  as  well  an  moil  of  the  phiiofophers,  the 
greateil  moralids  not  excepted?  Again,  1  do  not  uell  fee  what 
right  they  had  to  teach,  or  how  they  were  obliged.  Did  the 
lav/  of  nature  authoiife  them  to  be  public  teachers?  I  believe 
the  Deifis  think  not.  Was  not  every  man  able  to  fnift  for  bim- 
felf,  and  find  the  way  to  bleflednefs?  Jf  he  was,  what  need 
was  there  to  truil  thefe  villainous  prieRs  ?  Who  was  obliged  to 
liOen  to  them?  if  every  man  was  not  able,  without  the  help  of 
forne  inftruclor,  then  if  that  inrtru6ior  failed  in  his  duty,  as  it 
certain  they  did  almoU  perpetually,  (nay  o,ur  author  will  not 
allow,  nor  fee  I  any  need  of  that  abnofl)  what  becomes  of  the 
poor  vulgar,  who,  without  indruciion  cannot  reach  competent 
knowledge?  He  is  not  able  to  reach  it,  his  inltru6lors  fail  of 
their  duty  ;  and  for  any  thing  I  fee,  the  poor  man  vi'ants,  and 
muQ  always  want  a  fuflicient  religion,  and  that  without  any 
fault  of  his. 

Weil  then,  unavoidably,  either  every  man  is  able  to  do  mid 
know  for  hinifeif,  in  matters  of  religion  ;  or  a  great  many,  even 
iiicit  of  the  poor  vulgar,  are  loR  for  good  and  all  ;  and  there  is 
no  help  for  it,  and  that  without  their  fault.  If  the  lali  be  faid, 
our  author  has  loR  his  point  quite  ;  and  if  this  be  a  fault,  he 
U'ill  lay  it  at  the  door  of  Providence,  that  has  not  fufhcieiifly 
provided  all  men,  in  the  means  necclTaiy  for  their  future  happi- 
nefs  :  If  the  firil  be  faid,  then  the  blame  muil  lie;  at  every  man's 
own  dour.      But  meihinks  our  author  is  not  willing  of  lliis  ;  for 

he 

*  Pa.?.  iZo  fnh  f./icm, — «  Alihougb  it  v/ns;  fufHcicntiy  known  to 
<♦  them." 


PRTNCIFLES  OF  TFIE  MODERN  DEISTS.       337 

he  would  always  excuje  the  vulgr.r,  and  iirppcfe  them  fo  rud^^ 
and  ignorant,  that  (hey  Iiad  not  either  will,  courage,  nor 
ability  to  ftep  othervvife,  than  they  were  led.  But  after  all,  tlie 
fault  muft  be  lodged  at  their  doors,  or  the  Deifts*  whole  caufe  is 
loft.  I  confefs,  any  one  that  was  under  fuch  imprefficns  of  their 
(lupid  ignorance,  as  our  author  feems  to  have  been,  will  even 
think  it  hard  enough  to  lay  that  every  one  of  them  had  this  abil- 
ity, to  find  out  a  fufficient  religion  ;  and  I  believe,  not  without 
ground  ;  though  I  Oili  fliink,  that  they  tr.ight  have  knoVvn,aDd 
done  more  than  they  did  ;  but  this  will  do  the  Deifis'  caufe  no 
fervice. 

2.  But  further,  the  DciHs  muft  own  that  natural  religion,  ac- 
cording to  this  mould  of  it  at  leaft,  did  never  obtain  in  purity, 
without  any  additions,  in  any  place  of  the  M^orld,  Our  author  con- 
fedes,  that  on  this  foundation,  there  was  every  where  a  (Irangc 
fu peril ruc\ure  railed.  After  he  has  fpoken  of  thofe  articles,  he 
lubjoins  "Hsec  igitur  fincerioris  Gentilium  religionis  parttis  fu- 
*•  ere  ;  rcii»:iu?£  vel  commentitiae  fcibellas  vel  archctypse  r.ugcE, 
**  vel  fcitanienla  qusedem  prohiberi  poiTunt :  inter  quae  (danuio 
*'  mortalium)  nonnulla  inf^na,  nonnuUa  etiam  i^ipia  vii'eban- 
**  lur*."  Now,  this  being  the  cafe,  I  would  gladly  know,  if 
cur  author's  five  articles  aic  looked  upon  as  of  luch  virtue,  that 
they  could  hallow  all  thcfe  additions  made  to  them,  or  at  leaf?, 
fo  far  antidote  tlie  poifon  of  them,  that  perfons,  who  embractd 
this  complex  frarrse  of  religion,  confifting  of  thefe  five  articles, 
and  fuch  additions  as  in  every  nation  were  made  to  them,  might 
yet  reach  happinrfs,  or  not. 

It  is  pretended  that  thefe  five  articles  of  natural  religion, 
though  contaminated  witii  thefe  additions,  (as  our  author  fpeaks 
when  he  enters  upon  hisdifcourfe  about  thofe  orthodox  points  of 
religion,  **  Ritibus,  CKreraoniseq  ;  ccntaminabantur,  confpur- 
'*  cabanturqt,")  are  fufiicieni  to  lead  to  happinefs,.  then  this  is 
plainly  to  fay,  that  tne  religion  of  every  country  was  good 
and  fufficient,  and  that  every  one  might  be  laved  by  that  religi- 
on he  was  bred  in.J     ^f  the  defence  of  this    is  undertaken,  It 

T  t  will 

*   Pa~.   z\2 ««  Thefe  then  were  the  parts  of  the  more  pure  rejigi- 

«  on  of  :I-e  Heathen?,  the  others  were  devifed  fables,  or  ancient  trifleF, 
^f  or  falfe  ornaments,  among  which,  to  the  lofsof  rr.an,  fouie  iXiad  and 
<t  even  impious  things  were  likewife  to  he  ieea»" 

+  Par^.   1O4  Cap.  4.  at  the  clofe. 

%   HeioML  de  Veritate.  pag.  372. 


338  AN    INCtUlRY    INTO    THE       chap.  xvii. 

will  be  fourd  a  pretty  liard  province,  and  one  v/ill  not  eafiJy  be 
able  to  defend,  '1  bat  the  confiplex  reiipion  of  every  country  was 
Sufficient,  or  ilut  the  virtue  of  thofe  articles  was  fuch,  as  to  pre- 
ferve  from  the  hurt  of  the  additions.      What  if,    in  the  complex 
frame  of  moll  religions  of  the  world,    fome  of  our  author's  fun- 
damental articles  are  jiiflled   out  of  their  own  place?  Perhaps, 
while  each  rejigion  fets  up  for  fo  many  inferior  gods,  they  lob 
the  one  fupreme  God  of  much  of  his  glory,   to  adcrn  thefe  ima- 
ginary gods  wi»h.   It  may  be,  more  ftrefs  is  laid  on  rites  than  on 
virtue,  which    our  author  makes  the  principal  part  of  worQiip. 
Perhaps  more  Orcfs  is   laid  on  their  rites  for  expiation,    than  on 
repentance.      What  if  the  additions  made  are  Inch,  as  are  utter- 
ly inconfiflent  with  a  due  regard   to  theie  articles,  or  a  jufi  im- 
provement of  them  ?    What   if  there  arc  other  things  yoked  in 
with  them  in  m.oft  religior-s,  that  are  as  derrga?ory   to  the  hon- 
our of  God,  as  thefe  can  be  fuppoied  conducive  for  its  advance- 
ment ?   How  can  fuch  a  horrid  medley  of  things,  found  and  un- 
fcund,  orthodox  foundations  tiud  impious  fuperfiruCiures,  be  ac- 
c^ptible    to  God,  or  ufcfui  to  man  ?  One  half,   to  wit,    our  au- 
thor's five  calholic  articles,  is  dcfigncd  to  lead  men  to  blifs,  pre- 
tend theDeills:    And  the  other,  to  wit,  the  rites  -and  ceremo- 
?2/Vf,  are  defigned  to  the  vvoift  of  purpofes,  by   thofe  villains  of 
pricRs,   who  aim  at   cheating  the  world.      Now,  how  ftiall  fuch 
crofs  defigns  agree  or  confifl  ?  Or,   how  can  means  adapted  to  fo 
very  different,  nay,  quite  oppofite    ends,  be  united   and  hang 
together?  Or,  if  they  are  united,  how  can  that  religion,  which 
conhih  of  fuch  j;^rnncr   and    incoherent  materials,  turn  to  any 
account  ?    But  this  opinion  is  fo  ridiculous,  that  I  need  not  infifi 
in  difproving  of  it.      No  man  of  fobriety  can  ever  pretend   that 
thefe  articles  can  be  of  any  uie,  if  each  of  ih-^m  is  not  kept  in 
its  own  place,  and   if  care  is  not  t;;ken  to  guard  againd  all  ad- 
ditions, which  are  inconfitient   ivith  a  due  reipeel:    to  thofe  arti- 
cles.     Some  little  additions,  perhaps'cne  might   fuppofe  would 
do  no  great  hurt  :   b:.t    if   there  are  any,  that  entrench  on  the 
foundations,  and  put  them   cut  of  their   place,    the  whole   fa- 
bric fails,    and  all  is  ruined.   New  I  think  it  were  no  hard  work 
to  prove,    that  the   additions   were   fuch,    in    every  nation,    as 
rendered   the   whqje  utterly   ufeieis,  and  infufficient  to  any  of 
the   moil   confiderable  ends   of  religion,    either  with  lefpett  to 
God  or  r^^an. 

But  if  it  is  pretended,  that  vvliile  thofe  five  articles  are  alTert- 
cd  fufiicient,  it    is  only  meant,  that   if  perfons  would  abandon 

all 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       339 

all  thofe  extrvagant,  deftru£live  and  fihhy  additions,  which 
every  where  arc  siiade  to  them,  and  onlv  regard  Uicm,  ihcn  in 
foiiowing  thele  they  im^ht  attain  to  iite  and  eternal  happinela  ; 
if,  I  fay,  this  is  alleged,  then  1  would  all;,  how  fliall  we  dif- 
tinguilh  betwixt  thoie  a.ticles  and  others  that  are  interwoven 
with  them,  in  each  country  r*  Bv  what  rriarks  {hall  the  necefla- 
ries  be  known  from  tie  not  necelfaries  ?  The  fundamentals  from 
the  accelTaries  ?  Is  every  man  able,  with  our  author,  to  dilfe6^t 
and  infptdt  the  feveral  religions  ot  the  countries  where  they 
live,  and  feparate  (he  necclVaries  from  thefe  that  are  not  fo  ? 
Our  author  found  this  a  pretty  hard  talk;  What  (hall  poor 
mean  people  then  think  of  ii  ?  Our  author  has  iliown  what  fair 
pleas  might  be  made  for  many  of  the  mod  pernicious  parts  of 
the  religions  of  the  r-ations.  Would  a  poor  countryman  be 
able  to  rid  his  feet  of  fuch  fetters  ?  It  is  utterly  impollible  that 
the  one  half  of  mankind  couid  diftinguilh  betwixt  what  was  to 
be  rejeCied,  and  whit  was  to  be  retained.  In  a  word,  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  ail  the  world  over,  things  pernicious  and  deflruCHve 
were  fo  twifted  in  with  things  of  another  fort,  and  fuch  fair 
pleas  made  for  them,  that  it  was  ut  erly  impoffible  for  the  poor 
ignorant  vulgar  to  divide  the  one  from  the  other.  Since  ihen 
thefe  five  articles  fignifv  1  othing  unlets  they  were  fevered  from 
thefe  other  things,  which  were  every  where  interwoven  with 
them,  and  moft  part  of  m.'nkird  were  utterly  unable  to  do  this, 
which  I  doubt  no  man  eve[  did  before  our  author,  it  I'eems  evi- 
dent, that  of  whatever  ufe  they  may  be  to  our  author,  who  was 
fo  (harp-fighted,  as  to  fpv  them  out  and  diftinguilh  them  from 
the  other  things  witii  whj  h  they  were  mixt  ;  yet  they  can  be 
of  no  ufe  to  the  far  greater  part  of  mankind,  and  confequently 
the  far  greater  part  of  the  human  race  fiill  muft  he  ow^ned  deliif 
tute  of  the  means  that  may  bejuftly  termed  fuiticient  to  lead 
them  to  future  happinefs.  Thefts  five  artickr.,  as  in  fatt  they 
have  always  been  interwoven  with  other  things,  were  not  lutii- 
cient  to  fave  any;  and  whatever  their  force  might  be,  if  they 
had  been  fevered  f;om  other  things,  yet  they  not  being  fo,  be^ 
fore  our  author  did  it,  and  moft  part  of  m.en  being  utterly  un-^ 
capable  of  making  this  diitinction,  they  mull  be  looked  on  as 
infufficient  to  many,  at  lead  of  mankind,  who  therefore  cer- 
tainly were  denitute  of  means  needful  for  future  happir,}eis,  and 
fo  left  to  perish.  I  know  our  author  pretends  that  lome  Vv'ere 
able  to  diftinguiih,  and  did  make  a  diiFerence  betwixt  thefe  arti- 
cles and  the   additions  :     Vervm  quinq  ;    ariiculosj'upra  diBos 

(uti 


£4o  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE       chap.  xvii. 

(uti  qiu  in  cordc  defcrihuntiir )  fr.u  ulla  h-^/itatiGuc  accipuhant 
oiim  Gentiles  dubio  procul ;  de  reliqms  pitto,  azihgcl'ant,  ititn  li 
pTc'efertimy  qui  inter  itlos  Jalttm  fapisntiores  exij}i?nabantur* * 
How  ill-grounded  our  author's  confidence  as  to  the  univerfal 
acceptance  of  his  five  articles  is,  we  have  feen  above.  What 
he  fubjoins  about  the  Gentiles  dirtinguilhing  the  additions  that 
were  made  to  xhzvn^  from  them,  comes  not  up  to  the  point  :  For 
the  q'jeftion  is  net.  Whether  fome  could  thus  diftimgulih  the  one 
from  the  other  ?  but,  Whether  ail  did,  or  could  ?  And  when  he  ' 
pretends  that  (omc  of  the  more  dilcerning  did  \o,  v.hat  proof 
advances  he?  Nothing  but  his  bold  puto.  This  reflccticn 
might  be  further  urged,  but  1  (haliparsit,  and  proceed  to  ano- 
ther. 

3.  How  iliall  one  be  latisBed  that  thefe  five  avticles  are  ail 
that  uere  neccUary  ;  or  that  they  are  Sufficient ?  Are  the  De-its 
all  agreed  about  this  ?  No,  we  have  heard  one  above  making 
feven  neceiiary.  Nay  our  author  is  not  too  confident,  as  we 
have  heard  above,  when  he  fays:,  ihia?n  nulli  Jatis  cxplorata 
Jint  juduia  dwina  ;  quam  etiam  oh  caujamy  neqac  eos  fitjficere 
protenus  dixerimf.  We  fee  our  author  is  not  veiy  lure  about  »he 
iufticiency  of  thole  articles.  But  lie  feeins  pretty  pcfitj/e  that 
there  is  no  other  article  djfcoverable  by  the  cGinnrson  rec'-fon  of 
marikind,  that  can  be  of  any  great  ufe,  or  that  is  neceiiary  to 
anfwer  the  great  ends  of  religion,  the  public  peace  and  bet- 
tering of  mankind.  But  we  lee  the  DeiOs  arc  not  all  agreed 
here  :  fome  think  more  needful.  But  I  have  two  or  three 
words  to  lav  to  all  this — May  no  article  be  allowed  neceiiary 
that  is  controverted?  So  our  author  infinuates.  And  Blount 
in  his  Relioio  Laicij  is  pofitive  oftener  than  once.t»  Then  I 
would  know  of  the  Deifts,  Have  never  thefe  articles,  any  or 
all  of  them,  been  controverted  ?  Have  not  w,e  already  proven, 
that  the  /",»7/ aillcle  has  been. controverted,  about  tlie   being  of 

one 

*  ?d'y.  zi  T. — '<  B-Jt  doubrlcfs  the  Ileathcns  fonr.erly  received  with- 
<«  out  any  heiitation,  thcfc  five  ilrticles  above  nic;uJop.ed  (as  being 
<*  written  in  the.ir  hearts)  of  the  reft  I  think  that  they  doubted,  and 
«'  efpeclally  thofe  awiong  them  who  were  rt:ckoned  wifer  that)  others." 

i  VIJ.  pag.  47.  <«— As-;  th?  divine  judgments  are  not  fuilScicntly 
"  known  to  ^ny  one,  iot  wliu.h  reafon  likeviife,  neither  would  1  po- 
'*  llrivejy  afiirin  that  they  were  fulTicieiic." 

X  Compare  y:\g,  3  and  4. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-       341 

.  :e  JuprtTTie  God  ?  Is  not  our  author's  third  article,  viz.  **  That 
virtue  (as  it  is  diicoverable  by  the  light  of  nature)  is  the  princi- 
pal part  of  the  wcrihip  cf  God,"  dilpuied  by  Chrii^ians  ?  I^o 
not  the  follov/ers  of  Spinoza  deny  repentance  to  be  a  duty,  and 
that  in  coriipiiance  with  their  marter,  who  pretends  to  demon- 
ftrate  in  his  EthickSt  **  That  he  who  repents  is  twice  mi- 
ierable  *  V"  Has  not  the  fifth  been  controverted  by  many  of 
old  ?  Let  any  who  denies  this  read  Cicero,  Lib.  i.  Tufc,  Qjnejl, 
or  Plato's  Pliedon,  and  they  will  learn,  that  it  has  been  contro- 
verted by  more  of  the  wife  men  than  embraced  it.  And  do  not 
very  many  of  our  modern  Deifls  call  it  in  queftion  ?  Again, 
have  there  not  been  fome  other  articles  as  univerfally  agreed, 
us  little  controverted,  and  perhaps  lefs  than  fome  of  thefe?  To 
^:ive  but  one  inftance^  Has  not  the  article  about  the  worfhip  of 
God,  that  he  was  to  be  worfhipped  with  fome  foiemn  external 
v.'orihip,  whom  we  owned  as  God,  been  as  much  agreed  to  as  any 
cf  the  refl  ?  Doth  it  not  arife  from  the  common  reaibn  of 
is.'aiikinc?  But  I  rr;ali  wave  this. 

4.  1  here  is  another  thing  that  I  would  knov/  of  the  DclPis, 
concerning  their  five  articles*  Do  they  think  them,  as  they 
are  propofed,  fufficient  ?  or  muft  they  not  be  well  explairjed? 
If  as  they  are  propoi'ed,  I  would  gladly  fee  the  m^^n  that  can 
have  the  face  to  maintain,  what  is  not  only  untrue,  but  ridicu- 
lous. Will,  for  intlance,  the  o'Jirning  virtue  to  be  the  princi- 
pal part  of  the  worlhip  of  God,  fi^nify  any  thing  to  the  world, 
while  they  know  not,  and  are  not  agreed  what  is  virtue  and 
what  is  vice  ?  Is  not  this  to  mock  the  world,  to  propole  gene- 
ral articles,  and  tell  the  world  is  agreed  about  them,  while  yet 
one  half  is  not  agreed  what  is  the  fignilication  cf  thefe  general 
words?  Is  not  this  a  plain  cheat?  It  is  true,  Blount,  who  h:;s 
copied  all  fiom  our  author,  as  the  prefent  Deifts  do  from  him, 
tells  us  that  ihcfe  articles  nuiO  be  well  explained.  '*  Neither 
*^  can  I,  (fays  he)  imagine  fo  much  as  one  article  more  in  com- 
*'  rr.on  reafon,  that  could  make  man  better,  or  more  niouf, 
**  when  the  forefaid  were  rightly  explicated  and  obfervedf," 
But  now,  are  not  th^fe  articles  fullicient  unlefs  ligttly  cxpH- 

'  catcd  ? 


/rue  ex 


*  Spin.  Ethicks  pag.  4.  Prop.  54.  P.xntraitla  -z-iytus  nnjt  efi^  J'l 
ratio?te  non  oritur^  qtiem  fafii  pceniteti  his  mijcy feu  impoU7i%  eft. — "  Peni- 
**  tence  is  not  a  virtue,  nor  arifcs  from  reafca,  ibr  he  who  if  pents  of 
"  what  he  has  done,  is  twice  mircrable»  or  v/c?k." 

+  Religio  Laici.  pag.  -yj,  ^  * 


342  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE        chap.xvii. 

cated  ?  No,  he  dares  not  fay  It.  Well,  was  the  world  agreed 
about  this  right  explication  of  !hcm  ?  Who  ever  did  rightly  ex» 
plain  them  ?  Point  us  to  the  peribn  who  diet  it,  either  for  him- 
ielf  or  o  hers  ?  Was  every  body  able  to  do  it  for  himfelf?  U  not, 
then  I  fear  the  world  wanted  ftiii  a  fuilicient  religion,  after  all 
the  pains  taken  to  provide  them  in  one.  And  further,  what  is 
the  meaning  of  our  author's  wording  the  third  article,  **  That 
virtue  is  the  principal  part  of  the  worfliip  of  God  ?"  This  may 
be  true,  though  it  be  not  the  only  part.  Well,  though  it  is  the 
principal  part,  may  there  not  be  another  part  necejjary?  Tho' 
perhaps  the  head  of  a  man  is  the  principal  part,  yet  there  are 
lome  other  parts  neceflary.  Was  not  the  world  as  m.uch  agreed 
\\\a\  there  fhould  be  another  part,  as  that  this  was  a  part  of  the 
M^orOiip  of  God  ?  I  be  ieve  it  is  eafy  to  prove  the  world  was 
more  agreed  as  to  the  firfl  than  the  lall»  Why  then  muft  this 
be  overlooked  .?  I  believe  i  could  guefs  pretty  near,*— 'he  v^  as 
afraid  to  do  it,  becaufe  he  faw  that  he  would  prefently  be  con- 
founded w^ith  the  differences  about  the  way  of  worfhip,  and 
that  he  would  never  be  able  to  maintain,  that  reafon  was  iufh- 
cient  to  direct  as  to  x\\z  fokmn  zuorphip  of  God;  and  that,  if 
he  ihouid  affcrt  it,  he  would  have  not  only  Ch'iflians  to  difpute 
th.e  point  with  him,  but  Heathens.  But  leH  it  (liould  be  thoug.ht 
\}'hat  is  alleged  of  the  Heathen's  looking  on  reafon  as  income 
petent  for  this,  is  ojoi.ndlefs,  1  fliall  only  copy  you  a  little 
of  Socrates  and  Alcibiades's  difcourfe  about  worililp  out  of  Pla- 
to, or  rather  remind  the  reader  of  what  we  quoted  from  him 
before.  Socrates  meets  Alcibiades  going  to  the  temple  to  pray, 
and  dllTuades  him  from  it,  becaufe  he  knew  not  how  to  do  it,  ^,:^ 
till  one  (hould  come  and  teach  hifii.  Socrates  fays,  "  It  is  al- 
^*  together  necciTary  you  ihouid  wait  for  fome  perfon  to  teach 
**  you  how  you  ought  to  behave  youifelf,  both  towards  the 
**  gods  and  men."  Alcibiades  replies,"  And  v/hcn  will  that 
**  time  come,  Socrates?  And  who  is  he  that  will  inflru<5\  me? 
"  With  what  pleafure  fhould  I  look  on  him  !"  Whereupon  So- 
crates bids  him  hope  **  that  God  will  do  it,  and  will  take  the 
*'  mift  otF  his  foul,  and  cure  him  of  that  darknefs,  that  hinders 
**  him  from  dininguiibing  betwixt  good  and  evil."  Wherc- 
**  upon  Alcibiades  favs,  **  I  think  1  muil  defer  my  facrlfices  to 
•'  that  tim-::."  To  which  Socrates  returns,  **  You  have  rea- 
*'   ion  :   it  is  more  fafe  to  do   (o,   than    run   fo    great    a   ri(k*" 

And 

*  ivi.  D.icier's   Flato  En.gllf!.:ed,    Vol,  i.    pag.   249,   250.    Second 
Alcibiad.  Ur,  Uf  Prayer, 


i 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       343 

And  the  fame  Plato  elfewhere  tells  us,  **  That  tliis  inriru6^or 
*•  mull:  be  a  psrien  Tomevvhat  more  tlian  human."  Nor  was 
Jamblicus,  a  famous  Platonick  philofopher,  w  ho  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  otherwife  minded,  whofe  m  ords,  as  i  fmd  them 
tranfiated  by  Mr.  Fergufon,  run  thus  :  **  It  is  not  eafy  to  know 
**  what  God  v/ill  be  pleafed  with,  unlefs  we  be  either  immediate- 
**  ly  inUrucied  by  God  ourfelves,  or  taught  by  feme  perfon 
'*  whom  God  hath  converfed  with,  or  arrive  at  the  knowledge 
**   of  it  by  feme  divine  means  or  other  *." 

5.  There  is  another  thing  that  I  vv'culd  gladly  be  informed  of, 
and  that  is,  whether  every  fort  of  knowledge  of  them  be  (ui^.' 
cient  ?  Or,  is  a  clear,  certain  and  firm  perfuafion  needful  ?  If 
the  firfi,  How  can  a  dark,  uncertain  and  wavering  knowledge 
have  that  influence  upon  prad^ice,  and  that  vigour  to  excite  to 
a  compliance  with  them,  which  is  abfolutely  needful  in  order  to 
attain  the  benefit  of  them  ?  If  the  latter,  How  will  cur  autlor 
prove,  that  it  was  any  where  to  be  met  with,  as  to  their,  all,  in 
the  Heathen  world  ?  Or,  how  will  he  make  it  appear,  that  it  is 
attainable  by  m^ere  reafon  ?  Melhinksour  author's  words  above- 
noted,  as  to  the  fifth  article,  feem  not  to  import  any  great 
certainty.  1  his  might  be  urged  to  that  degree  that  it  would  be 
very  hard,  nay,  I  fear  not  to  fay  fo,  impoirxble,  for  (he  DeiTis 
to  rid  their  feet  of  it. 

6.  I  would  further  know,  Will  thefe  five  articles  be  fumcicnt 
to  this  end,  to  lead  to  eternal  happinejsy  whether  men  direct  to 
it  or  not  ?  Is  not  the  intention  of  fome  confideraiion  in  m.oral 
ad^ions  V  And  what  if  I  (liould  deny  that  the  religion  of  Hea* 
thens  was  dire6fed  to  this  end,  the  obtaining  of  future  happi- 
nefs?  If  1  ihould,  I  know  feme  very  great  men  are  of  my  mind. 
1  fhall  name  two,  the  one  a  Chrifiian,  the  other  a  Heathen. 
The  firjl  is  the  famous  Samuel  Pufl'endorf,  counfcllor  of  fiate 
to  the  late  king  of  Sv/eden.  His  words  are  v/orthy  to  be  here 
tranfcribed,  though  fcm^ewhat   long.     **  Now   to   look   back  to 

the  firll  beginnings  of  things,  we  find,  that  before  the  nativi- 
ty of  our  Saviour,  the  inhabitants  of  the  whole  univerfe,  ex- 
cept the  Jews,  lived  in  grofs  ignorance  as  Xo  fpiritual  afTairs* 
For  what  was  commonly  taught  concerning  the  gods,  was 
for  the  moil  part  involved    in   fables,  and    u:oft   extravagant 

abfurdities. 

*  Lib.  4.  de  Lege  Civ.  by  Dr.  leilie  ag^inft  the  Jews.  m-g.  306. 
Ferg.  Enquir.  into  morjtl  virtue,  &c.  pn^;.  177.  j;irr.LIi.  de  \  >ia. 
Fythag.  Cap.  28. 


344         A:J     I:\QIJIRY     INTO     TME      chap.  xvii. 

*'  abfurdities.      It  is  true,  fo'.TJe  of  the- learned  :imong  them  have 
**  pretended  to  give  fonie   rational   account  concerning  the  n?.- 
**  ture    of  the   gods  and  the  foul  ;  but   all  tills  in  fo   imperfect 
*'  and  dubious  a  manner,  that   they  th^-mfolves  remained   vcrv 
*^   uncertain    in   the  whole  matter.     They  agreed   almoO  all  of 
^^   thern  in  this  point,  that  mankind  ought  to  apply  themfelves  to 
<'  the  pracfticeof  virtucj  but  they  did  not  propofe  any  other  fruiis, 
<*   but  the  honour  and  benefits,  which  ti;cnce  did  accrue  to  civil 
'^   fociet}^.      For  what   the    poets  did   give  cut    concerning  tlie 
^'   rewards  of  virtue   and  puniihments  of  vice  after  death,  t\'as 
^'  by  thefe,  who  pretended  to  be  the  wi feft  among  them,   look- 
«'   ed  upon  as   fables,  invented  to  terrify  and  keep  in    awe   the 
i'  coma.on  people.      The  refl  of  the    people  lived    at   random, 
i'  and  v/hit  the  Heathens  cfillcd   religion,  did  not  contain   any 
a  doctrine  or  certain  articles  coucerr.ing  the   knowledge  ofdi- 
((   vine  matters.      But  the  greateft  part  of  their  religious  worjhip 
a  ccnhrted  if?  facrifices  and  ceremonies,  which  tended   more  to 
a  fports  and  voluptuoufnefs,  than  to   tlie  contemplation    cf  di- 
i(  vine   things.      VVlierefore   tl;e  Heathen  religion   did   neither 
'•   edify  in  this  life,  nor  adord  any  hop'^sor  comfort  at  the  time 
ii  of  death*."    Thus  far  he.    Now  methinks  here  is  a  quite  dif- 
ferent account  of  tlie  Heathen  world  from  that  which  our  author 
gives   us,  and  that  given    bv  no   churchman,  but  a   ftatefrnan  ; 
and   one   as  learned  as  our  author  too,  and   that  both  in  hijiory 
an.i  the  lazu  oj  nat'ue^  as  his  works  evince;   and  in  my  opinion 
it  is  the  juiter  of  the  tv;o  accounts,  '^^hc Jtcond  is  Varro,  quoted 
by  our   author,  w  ho  divides  the  reliaicn    of  the    Heatb.ens   into 
three  forts,  Primum  genus  appeilat  Mythicon,  Juundunit  Civile 
tertiunij   Phy^cumt.  The  hrii  is  that  cf  the  poets,  which  is  al-'^ 
to[/erher/rt/'i-/j:.'i-       The  other  which   he   calls  natural,  is   tb.at 
of  the  phiIoil)pher?,  which  is  wholly  employed  about  the  nature | 
of  the    gods.      Ad  Varro  exprefsly  fays,   it   was  not  meet  for 
for,   n  »r   of   any  ufe   to  the  vulgar.      Tue  third    fort  was  what 
he  calls   civil,   which  wa-s   wholly  calcjlatcd  for  human  iociety, 
ajid  its  fuMport  :    an  J    to  this  all   the  public  worfhip  belonged,  if  \ 
.  we  may  believe  Varo  in  the  pafi'age  v/e  row  fpeak  of.     When  I 
he   lias   0[)ened    the  nature  of  e^^ch  uf  them,   be  concludes  with 
i\n  account  of  the  delign  of  tlicm.     *'  rrinui   theologia  maxirne 

*  Introdua.   IliPu  of  Europe,  pao.   3/;-.   Ch.    12.   Par.   2. 
+  5:;ee  it  alii)  in  Au-id.  de  Civii.   Dei,  V.j.   6.  C;i'-,    - 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       345 

**  accormncdata  efl  ad  thmtriun:  fecundafdl.  naturalis  ad  fnu?i' 
**  dunt:  Tertia  ad  urbe?7i*»''  No  word  here  of  eternal  life,  as 
the  defign  of  any  of  them.  The  palTage  ilfelf  fully  excludes  it, 
and  had  it  not  been  too  long,  had  been  worthy  to  be  tranfcrlbed. 
7.  To  draw  to  a  concluhon,  Was  it  enough  to  the  Heathens 
that  thefe  things  were  fuCicient,  although  they  did  not  know 
them  to  be  To?  Or  was  it  needful  that  they  fnould  know  them 
to  be  fo?  If  the  lafi  be  laid,  how  could  they  be  fure  about  that, 
even  the  vulgar  fort  of  them,  which  cur  author  after  all  bis  appli- 
cation to  this  controverfy,  could  not  win  to  be  fure  of?  If  th^ 
firft  be  faid,  I  would  afk  any  Deift,  Was  not  the  end  of  natural 
religion  fixed,  and  were  they  not  certain  ?  Or  might  they  not, 
at  leaU,  be  fixed  and  certain  about  it  ?  if  it  was  not,  how  could 
they  ufe  or  chufe  means,  or  dire6\  them  to  an  end  which  was 
not  fixed,  and  they  were  not  certain  about?  If  it  was,  then  with 
what  courage  could  they  ufe  means  with  refpect  to  an  end  and 
means,  in  the  ufe  of  which  they  had  fo  many  difficulties  to 
grapple  with  ;  yet  they  could  not  be  fure  that  they  were  fufficl- 
ent  by  the  leaft  ufe  of  them  to  gain  the  end?  Was  it  enough  of 
encouragement,  that  they  might  ufe  them  at  all  adventures,  not 
knowing  whether  they  were,  in  themfelves,  fufficienl  to  reach 
the  mark  or  not?  Meihinks  our  author  is  very  defe6live  as  to 
motives  to  excite  to  virtue. 


C    H     A    P.      XVIII. 

Containiiiig  an  anfiuer  to  foim  of  the.   Delfts'  principal  arguments 
for  thz  fufficicncy  of  Natural  Religion. 

WE  have  now  confidered  what  the  Deifts  plead  from  uni- 
verjal  confent\' ^.x\A  have  fufficiently  cleared  that  it  is  not 
by  them  proven,  that  the  world  was  agreed  as  to  thefe  articles  ; 
that  indeed  the  world  did  not  agree  about  them  ;  that  even 
they  who  owned  them,  were  led  to  this  acknowledgment,  at 
lead  of  fome  of  them,  rather  by  tradition  than  nature's  light ; 
and  that  though  they  had  acknowledged  them,  they  are  not 
fujficient*  It  now  remains  that  we  confidcr  thofe  arguments, 
wherein  they  conceive  the  great  ftrength  of  their  caufe  to  lie. 

U  u  The 

*  <<  The  firft  theology  is  fitteH  for  the  theatre,  the  feconi>  to  viit, 
^*  the  natural,  for  the  v»orld,  aqd  the  third  for  the  city," 


34^  AN   INCLUIRY   INTO    THE       chap.  xvm. 

The  Hrfl  argument,  uhich  indeed  is  the  ftrongcft  the  Deifts 
cati  pretend  unto,  is  thus  propofed  by  their  admired  Herbert: 
"  Et  quiiiem  quum  media  ad  viBum,  veftitumque  heic  commoda 
*'  Jv-ppeditant  cunBis  natura  five  Providtntia  reritm  communis, 
^^  J^fp^cari  non  potui,  eundem  Deum,  Jwe  ex  natura^  Jive  ex 
**  gratia^  in  Juppedilandis  ad  heatiorem  hoc  noftro  fiatum,  me- 
**  diiSy  ulli  hominum  decf/e  poffe  vel  velle,  adeo  ut  licet  mediis 
"  illis  parum  re£le,  vel  fdiciter  ufi  jint  Gentiles,  haul  ita  tamen 
*'  perDeum  ophmum  maximum  jlc tent,  quo  ?ninus  falvi  fierent*^' 
To  the  fame  purpofe  fpeaks  Blount  in  his  Rdigio  Laid,  and 
A^  W,  in  his  letter  to  him  in  the  Oracles  of  Resfon,  of  whom 
afterwards.  The  force  of  all  that  is  here  pleaded  will  beft  ap- 
pear, if  it  is  p.it  into  a  clear  arpjument,  and  I  (hall  be  fare  not 
to  wrong  it  in  the  rropofal.     The  argument  runs  thus  : 

The  good nefs  of  God  makes  it  necejfary   tkat  all  men  be  prO' 
Tided  in  the  means  Titcejfary  for  future  hlijs^ 

But  all  men  are  provided  in  no  other  ineans  of  attaining  future 
blifs  javc  nature: s  lipjit. 

Therefore  no  other  means  are  neceffary  for  all  men  fave  the 
light  of  nature* 

The  minor  or  fecond  propofition  needs  not  to  be  proven, 
f.nce  is  it  is  owned  by  thofe  who  maintain  revelation,  that  it 
is  not  given  to  all  men,  and  therefore  that  many  have  indeed 
no  other  light  to  guide  them,  fave  that  of  nature,  in  matters  of 
religion,  or  ia  any  of  their  other  concerns. 

The  fifit  proportion,  "  That  the  goodnefs  of  God  makes  it 
neceifary  that  ali  men  be  provided  in  the  means  of  attaining 
future  blciTcdncfs,"  is  tliat  which  they  are  concerned  to  prove. 
And  the  ftrength  of  what  ihey  urge  for  proof  of  it  amounts  in 
Ihort  to  this  : 

The  gcodnefs  and  wifdom  of  God  feem  to  render  it  necejfary 
that  all  creatures f  hut  more  efpecially  the  rational,  he  provided 
in  all  means  necef/ary  to  obtain  thofe  ends  they  were  7nade  capa- 
hie  of,  and  obliged  to  pur  fie. 

But  men  a^e  ynade  capable  of,  and  obliged  to  purfae  elernal 
happinefs  and  fe!icit\. 

Therefo'e  the  good nef  and  wifdom  of  God  make  it  neceffary 
that  all  men  fliould  be  provided  in  the  means  neceffary  to  obtain 
future  and  eternal  blifs. 

Here  v/e  have  the  ftrength  of  their  caufe,  and  wc  fhall  there- 
fore 

*  For  the  tranfialion,  fee  note  at  bottom  of  pag.  277  of  this  b^o'c. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      347 

fore  confider  this  argument  the  more  ferioufly,  beciiufe  fome 
fecm  to  be  taken  with  it,  and  look  upon  it  as  having  much 
force.  Before  I  offer  any  diredt  anfvver,  I  fiiall  make  fome 
general  ref]e6lions  on  it.  The  hrft  procefs  is  only  defigned  to 
make  way  for  this  laft,  which  indeed  is  the  argument,  and  con- 
tains the  force  of  what  is  pleaded  by  the  Deilis. 

Now  concerning  this  argument,  we  offer  the  few  following 
reflections,  which  will  not  a  little  weaken  its  credit,  and  make  it 
look  fufpicious-like. 

I.  That    propofition   whereon    its  whole   weight  leans,  viz. 
**  That  the  goodnefs  of  God  obliges  him   to  provide  his  crea- 
tures in  the  means  necefiary   for  attaining   their   ends,"  is  one 
of  that  lort,  about  which  we  may,  in  particular  cafes  and   ap- 
plications of  it,  be  as  eafily  miftaken,  and  are  as  little  in  iuto*, 
to  be  pofitivs  in  our  determinations,  as  anywhere    elfe.     For, 
although  we  are   furer  of  nothing:  than  that  God   is  good^  and 
7?iu/i  aB  congruou/ly  to  his  goodnefsy  in  general  ;  yet  when  we 
come  to   make    parti':ular    inferences,  and   determine  what,  in 
point  of  goodnefs  he  is  obliged  to  do,  we  are  upon  very  flippe- 
ry  ground,  efpecially  if  we  have  not,  as  in  this  cafe  it  is,  the  ef- 
fects to  guide  us.   For,  befides  that  goodnefs  is  free  in  its  effects, 
divine  and  not  affixed  to  fuch  ftated  rules  knowable  by  us,  as  juf- 
tice  is,  goodnefs,  in  its  adings,is  under  the  conduCf  and  manage- 
ment of  all-comprehending  wifdom,  which  in  every  cafe  wherein 
God  is  to  a6t,confiders  that  a  being  not  only  infinitely  good  is  to 
a6t,but  alfo  one  who  is  infinitely  wife,  holy,  juft  and  righteous  ; 
and  therefore  all-compiehending  wifdom  takes  under  confider- 
ation,  or  rather  has  in  its  view  the  concernment  of  all  thofc  pro- 
perties of  the  divine  nature  ;  and  withall,  all  the  circumdances 
belonging  to  each  particular  cafe,  and  takes  care  that  the  cafe, 
in  all  its  circumftances,  be   fo   managed,  that  not   one    of   the 
divine  perfections  fliine  to  the  eclipfing  of  another  ;  but  that  all 
of  them    appear  with  a  fuitable  luUre.     Nov/,  it  is  certain  that 
we,  who  are  of  fo  narrow  underftandings,  and    fo  many  other 
ways  incapacited  to  judge  of  the   wavs  of  God,  cannot  reach 
either  the  different  intereffs  of  the  divine  properties,  and  judge, 
in  a  particular  circumilanciated  cafe,  what  beiits   a  God,  who 
is  at  once  good,  holy,  wife  and   righteous  ;  nor  can  we  reach  ail 
that  infinite  variety  of  circuir.ffances,  which   lying  open  to  the 
all-corr.prehending   view   of   infinite  and  confummate  wifdom, 
may  make  it  appear  quite  olherwife  to  him  than  to  us.     Hence, 

in 
*  "  hi  fafety^  '* 


345  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE       ghap.xviii. 

in  fiiSt,  we  fee  that  an  almofl  infiui'e  number  cf  things  fall  out 
in  the  government  of  the  world,  u'hicli  we  know  not  how  to 
reconcile  to  divine  goodnefs:  and  as  many  J^re  left  undone, 
which  we  would  be  apt  to  think  infinite  goodnefs  would  make 
necedary  to  be  done.  This  coniideration,  if  well  weighed, 
would  make  men  very  fpirlng  in  determining  any  thing  necef- 
fary  to  be  done,  in  refpe*£^  of  divine  goodnefs,  which  either  it 
is  evident  he  has  not  done,  or  of  which  we  are  not  fure  that  he 
has  done,  which  perhaps  we  (hall  make  appear,  if  it  is  not 
from  what  has  been  already  faid  evident,  to  be  the  cafe. 

2.  I  obferve,  as  to  what  is  advanced,  *'  That  man  is 
made  capable  of,  and  obliged  In  duty  to  purfue  eternal  telici- 
ty,"  that  ahhougli  from  revelation  we  know  this  to  be  true  as 
to  man  in  his  original  ccnditutionj  and  by  the  remaining  de- 
fires  of  it  we  may  guefs  that  po(ribly  it  was  fo  ;  yet,  if  we  iet  a- 
fide  divine  revelation,  and  coniider  rnan  in  his  prefent  Hate, 
concerning  which  the  qiieftion  betwixt  us  and  the  Deiits  pro- 
ceeds, we  cannot  by  the  help  of  nature's  light  only,  with  anv 
certaintv  conclude,  **  that  inm  is  capable  of  and  obligt^d  to 
purfue  etern^jl^  felicity."  We  fee  the  man  diilolved  by  death. 
Nature's  light  knows  nothing  of  a  refurre^i^ion.  Without  a  re- 
furrcclion  there  is  nothing  can  be  f.iid  for  man's  eternal  felicity. 
Though  we  grant  his  foul  to  ha -e  no  principle  of  corruption  in 
itfelf,  and  fo  to  be  in  this  f^^nie  immortal  ;  yet  this  cannot  fecure 
usagaini^  the  fears  of  annihilation.  And  the  guiis  anS  defircs  of 
felicity,  from  which  we  mav  be  induced  tofufpe^i  fome  Inch  fiate 
defigned  for  man,  being  apparently  fruftrafed,  by  {he  dilfolution 
of  man,  to  which  they  have  a  refpecl,  cannot  but  make  n»cn,who 
have  no  more  fave  nature's  light,  hefitate  mightily  about  this 
affertlon  ;  WiicQ  it  is  plain,  that  the  dc fires  we  find  in  ourfelves 
of  fehcitv,  do  rcfpecSl  the  whole  man  ;  and  the  avcrfion  we 
have  to  diifolutjon  refpects  our  natuics  in  their  prefent  entire 
frame  and  conliitation.  Befides,  it  is  of  moment,  that  if  man, 
now  entire,  is  at  a  lofs  how  to  judge  of  the  ends  for  which  he 
was  made,  nsuch  more  mud  he  be  fuppofed  in  a  (Irait  how  to 
judge  and  determine  for  what  ends  any  particular  part  belonging 
to  his  confiitutlon  was  defigned,  after  the  dlfi'olution  of  the  whole 
in  a  fcparate  Hate,  that  is,  in  all  its  concernments,  fo  much  hid 
from  and  uijknown  to  us.  Farther,  although  undoubtedly  as  long 
as  we  are,  it  is  our  duty  to  make  it  our  chief  aim  to  plcafe 
Cyod,  and  feek  for  felicity  only  In  him  ;  yet  fince,  not  ojily 
our   beings,  but  that  felicity  which  may  be  fuppofed  attain  il-ie 

by 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       349 

by  us,  arc  emanations  frotn  fovereign,  free  and  undsferved 
bounty,  without  fome  intimation  from  him,  in  way  of  promilc, 
we  can  draw  no  fure  conclufion  as  to  its  continuance,  were 
we  innocent,  much  lefs  can  we  being  guilty. 

3,  This  argument  concJudes  nothing  in  favour  cf  the  Deifis; 
whatever  it  may  fay  for  the  Heathens.  For  were  it  granted, 
tl)at  God  is  obliged  to  provide  al!  men  in  the  means  necelTary 
to  future  felicity  ;  and  that  he  has  not  given  ajl  men  any  other 
means:  yet  it  cannot  be  hence  inferred,  that  he  has  given  no 
other  means  to  fome.  In  this  cafe,  if  all  this  were  granted, 
which  yet  we  have  not  done,  it  would  follow,  that  they,  who 
l)aye  no  other  means,  muft  look  on  thefe  as  fulficient,  and  that 
they  really  are  fo  :  But  fiill  God  is  left  at  liberty  to  prefcribe 
cfher  duties  to  any  particular  perfons,  or  nations,  by  revela- 
tion ;  and  if  this  revelation  come,  they  are  obiieed,  to  wltorii  it 
comes,  to  attend,  receive  and  obey  it.  "Now  \{  \\\z  Jcnptures 
be  a  aivine  revelation,  attended  with  fufiicient  evidence,  which 
the  Deilh  mufl  either  allow,  or  overthrow  v^hat  it  pleads  for 
itfelf ;  they  are  everlallingly  undone,  ualefs  they  receive  it,  and 
coiDply  with  it. 

4.  1  obferve,  that  the  conclufion  of  this  arpjument,  which  it 
aims  at  the  eliabliihrnent  oi,  viz.  That  God  in  point  of  goodne/s, 
muj}  provide  all  men  in  the  means  nece/fary  to  juturtjeluily,  and 
confequcntly  has  donz  it,  is  exceedingly  prejudiced,  by  ifs  lying 
croJs  to  tlie  plain  fenfe  and  experience  of  the  world  in  all  ages, 
as  has  been  plainly  maie  appear.  Now  in  this  cafe,  where  tho 
principles  or  premilTes  are  dark,  and  fuch  whereabout  we  may 
tahly  be  niiilaken,  which  is  the  cafe  here,  as  appears  by  the 
two  firil  rcilciStions  ;  and  the  conclufion  carries  a  manifeil  con- 
tradiction to  what  we  mu(t  certainly  know,  and  have  e^vpeii- 
ence  of;  in  this  cafe  we  have  reafon  to  conclude,  that  there 
lies  certainly  a  fallacy  or  mifiake  in  one  or  other  cf  the  princi- 
ples ,  though  we  cannot  difcover  prefently  were  it  pvi^cifely  is. 
And  therefore,  although  m.en  could  not  eallly  except  ag::inft 
the  pr^miiTes  or  principles,  v/hence  it  is  deduced;  yet  they 
would  think  themielyes  fufbciently  warranted,  if  not  plainly  to 
reje6i,  yet  to  be  iliy  in  admitting  the  conclufion  :  forafmuch  as 
the  admitting  the  conclunon  will  obli|i:e  them  to  deny  what 
their  own  fenfe  and  experience,  as  well  as  that  of  the  v.csld, 
adores  them  about ;  Whereas,  it  is  much  more  reafona'jle  to 
think  and  determine  that  there  lies  fome  fallacy  in  the  princi- 
ples, though  it  may  be  they  are  not   in  cafe  to  dct^iSl  it.     No 

man, 


35®  AN  INQ^UIRY   INTO    THE      chap,  xviii. 

man,  by  the  arguments  againfl  motion,  can  be  brought  to  quef- 
tion  its  being,  much  lefs  its  poffibility  ;  yet  there  are  thoufands, 
even  no  mean  icholars,  who  cannot  anfwer  the  arguments  that 
conclude  againJl  it.  But  in  very  deed,  this  argument  is  not  i'o 
firong,  as  to  need  fo  much  nicety. 

Having  thus  far  weakened  it  by  thefe  general  reflections,  I 
fliall  next  lay  down  and  clear  fome  propofitions  that  will  lay  a 
foundation  for  a  clcfe  anfwer  fo  it. 

1.  All  men,  at  prefent,  are  involved  in  guilt,  have  corrupt 
inclinations,  and  are  under  an  inability  to  yield  perfedl  obedi- 
ence to  the  law,  they  are  fubje6led  to.  That  all  in  more  or 
icfs,  are  guilty  of  fin,  cannot  be  well  denied,  and  we  have  heard 
U^s  Oracles  of  Reajon  owning,  <*  Th:it  all  do  err  fometimes, 
*'  even  the  bell,  in  their  a6\ions."  That  men  are  corrupt,  or 
have  corrupt  inclinations,  has  been  above  futficiently  evinced. 
That  all  are  under  fome  fort  of  inability  to  yield  perfedl  obedi- 
ence, is  atteded  by  the  experience  of  all,  and  befides,  is  an  in- 
evitable confequent  of  the  former  :  for  it  is  not  poffible  to  fup- 
pole  one  poffeil  of  corrupt  inclinations,  and  yet  able  to  yield 
peife6l  obedience.  Nor  need  wc  fland  to  prove  what  the  De- 
ids  own.  For  A.  W.  in  his  Letter  to  Charles  Blount,  fpeak- 
ing  of  the  law  of  nature,  fays,  **  I  do  not  fay  that  we  are  able 
perfe6lly  to  obey  it."  I  difpute  not  now  of  what  fort  this  ina- 
bility is,  whether  only  moral,  fuch  as  arifes  from  the  will's  in- 
clination to  evil  ;  or  natural,  which  imports  fuch  an  inability 
as  fuppofes  the  nature  of  the  faculties  vitiated,  though  the  fa- 
culties are  not  v/anting.  7>.e  condemning!  of  our  own  liearts, 
and  the  nature  of  the  moral  government  we  are  under,  fufii- 
ciently  allures  U3,  it  is  fuch  as  does  not  excufe  from  fault  ;  and 
further  we  arc  not  concerned  :  though,  after  all,  I  ^o  not 
underhand  how  the  will  can  be  fixed  in  an  inclination  to  evil, 
or  aveifation  from  good,  unlefs  the  nature  of  the  will  be  {v.-^^oi- 
ed  a{ie6>ed  with  fome  indifpofition,  though  the  faculty  is  not  re- 
moved. But  of  this  only  by  the  bye.  It  is  enough  to  our  prc- 
ient.purpofe,  that  man  is  guilty,  corrupt,  and  thence  unable. 
He  tnat  will  deny  this,  mull  fuppofe  us  blind  and  fenfelefs. 

2.  \i  reafon  can  afcertain  us  of  any  thing,  it  does  of  this,  that 
things  were  not  originally  thys  with  man,  or  that  man,  when 
he  was  hrft  made,  was  not  thus  guilty,  corrupt  or  impotent. 
None  will  any  dare  to  f:;y,  that  at  ic^^.  he  was  guilty.  And  to  af- 
fert  him  either  corrupt  or  impotent,  oveithrows  all  the  juft  no- 
fions  we  have  of  the  Djity.  How  can  it  be  fuopofed,  that  infinite 

wifdum 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       351 

wifdom  could  ena£l  laws,  which  were  not  only  not  likely  to 
take  effect,  but  really  could  not  poflibly  be  obeyed  by  men 
fubje£led  to  them!  Hov/  can  we  fuppole  infinite  goodnefs  to  c- 
ftabllfn  laws  under  a  penalty,  and  deny  the  powers,  which  were 
indifpenfably  requlfite  to  obey  them,  and  without  which  It  was 
not  poffible  to  evite  the  penalty  !  How  can  we  Tuppofe  infinite 
righteoufnefs  and  holinefs  to  confent  to  a  conftltution  of  this 
kind  !  How  is  it  conceivable,  that  a  God,  wife,  juft  and  good, 
fhould  originally  have  implanted  in  our  natures  inclinations 
contrary  to  thofe  laws,  that  were  the  tranfcript  of,  and  bore 
the  imprefs  of  all  thefe  perfections!  Or,  how  can  we  once 
dream  that  he  implanted  inclinations,  which  it  was  criminal  to 
fatisfy  or  comply  with!  For  ray  part,  I  fee  not  what  can  be 
reafonably  faid  in  anfwer  to  this. 

3.  It  is  further  evident,  that  man  could  not  have  fallen  into 
this  flate  he  now  is  in,  or  from  that  wherein  he  was  made,  but 
by  his  own  default.  If  this  is  denied,  I  inquire,  were  (hall  the 
blame  be  laid?  Will  ihey  lay  it  at  God's  door?  Befides,  that 
this  Is  blafphemy,  it  is  further  evident,  that  all  the  former  ab- 
furdltles  will  recur  :  Fcr  it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  give  powers,  and 
take  them  av/ay  again  without  any  default  in  the  perfon  who 
lofes  them,  the  obligation  to  obedience  or  fuffering  upon  difo- 
bedience  fiill  continuing.  Nor  can  It  be  laid  upon  any  other, 
becaufe  if  man  Is  without  his  own  fault,  robbed  oflhe  powers 
neceffary  to  obey,  the  obligation  to  obedience  cannot  be  ri^^ht- 
eouOy  continued.  Nor  was  it  confiRent  uilh  the  divine  wlfdoni, 
to  have  obliged  men  to  obedience,  under  a  penalty,  while  there 
was  a  poiTibility  of  man's  lofing  the  power  to  obey,  v/ithout  a 
fault  on  his  own  part.  It  remains  then,  that  man  has  by  hi^ 
own  fault  forfeited  what  he  has  in  this  part  loft.  And  to  this  our 
own  confclence,  and  the  confclences  of  all  finners,  who  are  fen- 
fible  of  fjn,  confent,  that  God  is  free  and  v/e  gulhy. 

4.  Flereon  it  inevitably  follows,  that  man  is  at  prefent  in  a 
corrupt,  finful,  and  impotent  ftate,  into  which  by  his  own  default, 
he  has  fallen.  Nor  fee  1  how  It  Is  pofiible  to  evIte  this,  which 
tonly  fums  up  the  three  preceding  allertions.  The  firft  whereof 
is  undeniable  with  fober  and  Ingenuous  perfons,  being  attefted 
by  the  plaineft  and  cleareft  experience,  and  the  other  two  Oand 
firm  upon  the  ciearefl;  deduCVions  that  our  reafon  can  make.  If 
any  Deift  Ihall  fay.  How  can  this  be  that  we  are  fallen  into  fuvch 
a  ftate?  I  anfwer,  i.  The  queftion  is  not.  How  can  It  be?  but,  I^ 
it  fo  ?  I  think  I  have  faid  enough  to  ibew  that  it  15  fo.     2,  Here- 

bv' 


^^2  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE       chap.  xvin. 

bv  vvc  may  lee  natural  religion  has  its  myfleiics  too,  as  well  as 
levealed.  And  I  think  I  have  told  more  than  one  of  them. 
Q.  If  this  will  not  I'atisfy,  then  get  as  much  faiih  and  humility  as 
will  teach  you  to  fubjea  yourielf  to  lupernatural  inftruction, 
and  vou  may  come  to  underftand  how  it  came  to  be  fo.  If 
you  will  not,  ycu  muft  remain  in  the  dark,  and  there  is  no 
help  for  it. 

Now  1  have  laid  a  plain  feundatton  for  an  anfwer  to  this  ar- 
gum.ent,  whereon  the  Deifts  value  themi'elves  lo  much.  It  was 
not  becaufe  I  thought  (o  long  an  anlwer  needful  for  the  argu- 
ment, but  to  make  the  matter  a  little  mere  plain,  that  we  have 
difcourfed  it  at  this  length. 

The  argument  then  runs  thus.  The  zvi/dom  and  goodmjs  of 
God  mah  it  ntczffary  that  all  his  creatures  fr.otild  be  provided  in 
the  means  neceffaryfoi  attaining  thi  end  oj  their  being,  and  this 
holds  efpecialiy  as  to  the  rational:  But  man  was  made  capable  of 
eternal  felicity  ;  or  this  is  the  end  oJ  his  being. 

I  need  fay  nothing  more  to  what  has  been  advanced,  than 
has  bsen  faid  above,  I  anfwer  to  the  fiiTt  propofition, — Be  it  al- 
lowed that  God's  wifdom  and  goodnefs  required  that  the  ra- 
tional creature  tliould  be  provided  in  the  means  neceflary  for  the 
attainment  of  the  end  of  his  being,  in  his  firll  make  and  ori- 
ginal Hate:  Yet  neither  God's  goodnefs,  nor  his  wifdom,  obliges 
i.im  to  reftore  man,  if  by  his  own  fault,  he  has  fallen  from  that 
fuitc,  wherein  at  firil  he' was  made.  Now  this  is  the  cafe  with 
man  in  his  prefent  ftate,  as  we  have  told  above. 

if  it  is  laid,  that  this  is  but  our  ailertion,  That  man  is  in  a 
bpfed  ftate:  I  anfwer,  i.  1  think  it  is  more  than  an  affertion, 
and  m'j(t  do  fo  till  1  fee  what  I  have  offered  for  proof  of  the 
foregoing  propolitions  fairly  anfwered.  Kay,  till  I  fee  the 
whole  arguments  that  have  heretofore  been  offered  againfl  the 
fulHcicncy  of  natural  religion,  anfwertd.  For,  I  think  they 
ail  prove  that  m^n  is  at  prefent  in  a  bpfcd  fiate.  But,  2.  I 
add,  that  the  Deiils  mufl  mind,  we  are  upon  the  defenfive,  and 
il  is  their  province  to  prove,  that  man  in  his  prefent  condition 
is  not  fo  fituated,  as  we  fay.  It  was^A'  abundanti  for  clearing 
of  truth,  that  I  condefcend  to  prove  this.  It  was  enough  to  me 
to  have  denied  that  man  is  new  in  iris  criginal  ftate,  and  put 
the  proof  upon  them  ;  in  regard  they  allirm,  and  tlie  whole 
ftrefs  and    force   of  their  argument  !ea:i:i   upon   that  fappofition 

which  we  deny. 

Tne 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      353 

The  fecond  argument,  on  v/hich  the  Deifts  lay  much  ftrels. 
Is  drawn  from  the  fuppofed  ill-confequences  attending  our  opi^ 
nion.  They  pretend,  that  it  is  horribly  cruel  to  imagine, 
that  all  the  Heathen  world  were  loft.  This  they  inculcate 
upon  all  occafions,  rather  to  expofe  their  adverfarics,  1  am 
afraid,  than  to  confirm  the  truth.  The  fum  of  this  argument 
we  fee  propofed  by  Herbert  in  his  words  above  quoted.  Where 
he  tells  us,  that  all  will  own  his  articles  to  be  good  ;  Jd  fa^ 
lutem  tamen  aternam  cojnparandam,  non  fufficere  prokibebunt 
nonnullim  C-^cterum,  qui  ita  locutusfucrit,  n£  ills  quidcm  audax  ; 
nedum  fdvum  temerariumq ;  effatiivi  mea  fententid  protulerii* • 
The  (hort  of  the  matter  is  this,  "  If  natural  religion  is  not  fuf- 
ficient,  we  muft  give  all  the  Heathen  world  for  loft  ;  but  this  is 
a  cruel  and  harlh  affertion,  injurious  to  God,  and  cruel  to  fuch 
a  vaft  number  of  men."  And  here  they  raife  a  horrible  out- 
cry.    With  this  they  begin,  and  with  this  they  end. 

This  argument,  although  it  has  no  force,  as  we  ftiall  evince^ 
yet  makes  fuch  a  noife  at  a  diftance,  that  a  great  many  ingenu- 
ous fpirits  feem  to  be  mightily  afFe6led  with  it :  I  conceive 
therefore  that  it  will  not  be  improper  to  lay  open  the  caufes  of 
this,  and  the  rather  becaufe  they  difcover  where  the  fallacy  of 
the  argument  lies,  and  whence  it  is  that  men  are  io  eafily  pre- 
poiTeffed  in  this  matter.  To  this  purpofe  then  it  is  to  be  obferved, 

I.  That  there  are  fome  things  which  in  themfelves  are  not 
defirable ;  to  which  therefore  no  uncorrupted  rational  nature, 
much  lefs  that  of  God,  could  incline  merely  upon  their  own 
account :  which  yet,  in  fome  circumftanliate  cafes,  may  be 
every  way  congruous  to  juftice  and  righteoufnefs  ;  yea,  and 
worthy  of  the  wife  and  good  God.  The  torment  of  any  rational 
creature  is  not  in,  or  for  itfelf  defirable  :  God  has  no  pleafurc 
in  it.  The  nature  of  man,  if  not  deeply  corrupted,  yea,  and 
diverted  of  humanity,  recoils  at  it ;  yet  there  is  none,  who  will 
not  allow  that  in  many  circumftantiate  cafes,  it  is  not  only  wor- 
thy of,  but  plainly  necefTary  in  point  of  wifdcm  and  juftice,  for 
the  moft  merciful  of  men,  to  infiidf  upon  their  fellow  creatures 
fuch  punifhments,  as  their  own  natures  do  (brink  at  the  appre- 
henfions  of.    Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  the  holy  God,  notvvith- 

X  X  ftanding 

*  De  Rel.  Gentil.  pag.  217.  " — Yet  fome  will  think  they  are  not 
«  fufficient  for  attaining  eternal  life.  But  v.'hoever  would  fay  fo,  would 
"  be  guilty  of  uttering  not  only  a  bcid,  not  to  fay  a  crael  and  aibitrar^ 
<<  fentence  in  lay  opinion," 


354  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE       chap.xviii. 

ftanding  of,  and  without  prejudice  to  his  innnite  goodnefs,  may, 
nay  in  Tome  cafes  niuft,  iikewife  thus  puniih  his  own  creatures. 
Now,  if  fuch  things  are  reprefented  as  they  are,  in  their  own 
natures,  without  a  due  confideraiion  of  circumftances  and  ends 
inducing  to  therri,  it  is  eafy  to  make  them  appear  not  only  hard, 
but  odious, 

2.  However  jurt,  righteous  and  congruous  fuch  a6^ions  are  ; 
yet  he  who  undertakes  to  expofe  them  as  cruel,  barbarous  and 
hard,  efpecially,  if  he  has  to  do  with  perfons,  weak,  ignorant, 
partial  in  favour  of  the  fufferer,  and  averfe  from  the  author  of 
the  torment,  has  a  far  more  eafy  tafk,  even  though  he  is  of  weak- 
er abilities,  and  employed  in  defence  of  the  worfl  caufe,  than 
he  who  undertakes  to  defend  fuch  aiftions.  The  reafon  of  this 
is  obvious  ;  all  that  makes  to  his  purpofe,  who  defigns  to  ex- 
pofe the  a6lion  as  cruel,  lies  open  in  its  nature  and  horror  to  the 
thoughts  of  the  mofi  inconfiderate  ;  and  if  to  this  he  only  fets 
off  the  reprefentation  with  a  little  art,  fo  as  to  touch  the  affec- 
tions, which  in  this  cafe  is  eafily  done,  he  has  carried  his  point ; 
the  judgment  is  not  only  deceived,  but  the  affe6\ions  are  fo  deep- 
ly engaged  in  the  quarrel,  as  to  percludc  the  light  of  the  mofl 
nervous  and  valid  defence  imaginable.  Whereas  on  the  o- 
ther  hand,  all  things  are  quite  otherwife.  The  circumftances 
inducing  to  fuch  aclions,  are  ufually  deep,  and  not  fo  eafily 
difcernible,  and  therefore  not  to  be  found  out,  without  much 
confideration;  and  when  they  are  found  out,  they  are  not  eafily 
collected,  laid  together,  and  ranged  in  that  order,  U'hich  is  ne- 
ceffary  to  (ct  the  atrocity  of  the  crime  in  a  due  light,  efpecially 
where  the  perfons  who  are  to  judge  are  weak  and  biaffed.  Be- 
fides,  the  evil  of  thofe  crimes,  being  for  mofl  part  more  fpiri- 
tual,  makes  not  fo  flrong  an  imprellion  on  the  afiedlions.  And 
this  confideration  holds  more  efpecially  true,  where  the  quef- 
tion  is  concerning  the  judgments  of  God,  which  proceed  upon 
that  comprehcnfive  view,  which  infinite  wifdom  has  of  all  cir- 
cumftances, that  accent  the  evil,  aggravate  the  fault,  and  en- 
hance the  guilt  of  fins  comniirted  agai nfl  him  ;  many  of  which 
circumftances  no  mortal  penetration  can  reach.  And  further, 
this  more  particularly  holds  true,  where  it  is  not  God  himfclf, 
but  man  that  pleads  on  behalf  of  the  a6\ings  of  God.  It  is 
very  obfervabie  to  this  purpole,  that  hiftorians  of  all  nations 
almoft  condelcend  upon  inilances,  wherein  the  fight  of  fevcrCf 
but  jufl  punilhmsnt  of  atrocious  offenders  has  not  only  excited 
the  compaffion  of  the    populace    to   the  fuffcrers,  but  enraged 

them 


PR1NC1PL.es  of  the  modern  deists.       355 

them  agawjft  the  judge.  Even  they  who  would  have  been  rea- 
dy to  reclaim  a.aainft  the  partiality  and  negligence  of  the  judge, 
if  the  crimes  had  been  pallid  without  juli  punifhnient,  when  they 
j'ee  the  punilbment  inflicted,  through  a  fond  fort  of  ccmpaffion 
to  tlie  fufferers,  complain  of  the  cruelty  of  the  judge,  laying  a- 
iide  all  thoughts  of  the  atrocity  of  the  crime. 

3.  Where  they,  Vv^ho  make  it  th-eir  bufinefs  to  traduce  fuch 
actions,  as  hard  and  cruel,  and  they  alfo,  whom  they  labour  to 
perfuade  of  this,  are  conne6led  by  alliance,  or  common  inter- 
eft  with  the  fuflerers,  are  themfelves  in  the  fame  condemnation, 
or,  upon  the  fame  and  fuch  like  accounts,  obnoxious  to  that 
juilice,  which  adjudges  thofe  fufferers  to  thefe  torments,  which 
they  fludy  to  reprefent  as  cruel  and  barbarous,  it  is  no  wonder 
to  fee  the  rcprefentation  make  fuch  deep  impreffions,  and  rivet 
fucha  perfuafion,  that  the  puniinments  are  cruel  and  hard,  as 
may  not  only  bias  a  little  againft  any  defence  that  can  be  made 
for  the  judge,  but  may  even  make  them  refufe  to  admit  of 
any  apology,  or  condefcend  fo  far  as  to  give  any  that  can  be 
made  a  fair  hearing.  But  all  unbiaffed  perfons  mufl  allow,  that 
fuch  can  never  be  admitted  judges  competent,  as  to  what  is  juft 
or  unjufl,  hard  or  otherwife  ;  the  cafe  being,  in  effefl,  their 
own,  and  they  by  this  means  being  made  bpth  judge  and 
party, 

4.  However  great,  terrible  and  heavy  any  punlfhment  that 
God  is  fuppofed  to  inf]i6t,  may  in  its  own  nature  appear,  or  how 
great  foever  the  number  of  the  fufferers  may  be,  yet  we  can 
never,  from  the  feverity  of  the  puniflim.cnt,  or  the  number  of 
the  fut?ercrs,  difprove  its  juRIce,  unlefs  we  can  make  it  appear, 
that  no  circumflances,  which  can  poiTibly  fall  under  the  reach 
of  infinite  v/ifdom,  cap  render  fuch  feverity  towards  fo  many 
perfons,  worthy  of  him.  Now,  however  eafy  this  undertaking 
may  appear  to  perfons  lefs  confederate,  it  will  have  a  far  other 
afpe<Si  to  fuch  as  impartially  ponder,  that  ail  men  are  manlfeflly 
partial  in  favour  of  thofe  of  their  own  race,  and  in  a  cafe  which 
is,  or  may  be  their  own,  and  have  no  fuitable  apprehenfions  of 
the  concernments  of  the  divine  glory  in  it,  or  no  due  regard  for 
them  :  Befides  fuch  is  their  fhallownefs,  that  they  can  neither 
have  under  view  many  important  circumflances,  that  are  fully 
cxpofed  to  all-comprehending  wifdom,  nor  can  they  fully  un- 
derftand  the  weight,  even  g^  befe  circuniu:inccs,tliat  they  either 
doj  or  may,  in  feme  meafure  know. 

5.  Every 


2s6  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE      chap,  xviii, 


5.  Every  man,  who  is  wife  and  juft,  when  either  he  hears  cf, 
or  fees  any  punifhment  that  appears  very  fevere  and  terrible, 
mud  fufpend  his  judgment  as  to  the  hardfliip  of  it,  till  the  author 
of  it  is  fully  heard  as  to  the  inducemerrts,  and  neither  ought  he  to 
deny  what  his  eyes  fee,  his  ears  hear,  or  he  is  otherwife  inform- 
ed of,  upon  fufficient  evidences.  He  is  neither  h^  queflion  the 
jmattcr  of  fa61,  nor  condemn  the  judge  of  cruelty,  becaufe  cf  the 
feeming  feverity  of  the  punlfhment.  This  is  a  piece  of  ccmmcn 
juftice,  which  every  judge,  even  amongR  men,  may  reafonably 
claim  from  his  fellow  creatures,  although  his  actions  and  the  rea- 
sons of  them,  cannnot  be  fuppofed  to  lie  fo  far  out  of  their  ken, 
as  thofe  of  the  divine  judgments:  Much  more  is  it  reafonable 
for  men  to  pay  this  deference  to  God,  confidering  how  unable 
the  moi\  elevated  capacities  are  to  penetrate  into  all  the  reafons, 
which  an  infinitely  wiib  God  may  have  under  view  ;  and  there 
is  the  more  leafon  for  this,  fince  man  alfo  is  naturally  fo  very 
apt  to  be  partial  in  his  ovv'n  favour,  and  to  fail  of  giving  a  due  re- 
gard in  his  thoughts  unto  the  concernments  of  divine  glory. 

Thcfe  obfervations,  as  they  are  in  themfelves  unqueOionabiy 
true,  fo  they  do  fully  lay  open  the  caufes  of  that  general  accept- 
ance, which  this  plea  of  the  Deifis  has  obtained  with  lefs  atten- 
tive minds  ;  and  how  little  weight  is  to  be  laid  upon  them.  In 
a  vvord,  if  they  are  well  confidered,  they  are  fufficient  to  ener- 
-vate  the  force  of  this  whole  plea. 

But  leafi  the  DeiOs  (hould  think  their  argument  flighted,  or 
that  confciouinefs  of  our  own  weaknefs,  makes  us  choofe  long 
weapons  to  fight  with,  I  fnall  clofely  confider  the  argument. 
Perliaps  v^hat  makes  a  nolle,  at  a  dillance,  will  be  lefs  frightful 
If  we  take  a  nearer  view  of  it.  We  deny  that  the  Heathen 
world  had  means  fufficient  for  obtaining  eternal  happinefs.  The 
Deifis  fays,  this  is  cruel  and  rci/Ii,  Let  us  now  fee  whence  this 
may  be  proven. 

I.  Doth  our  cruelly  lie  in  ibis,  That  we  have  laid  down  an 
aiTertion,  upon  which  it  follows,  that  in  fact  all  the  Htatheii 
world  are  loji?  But  now,  do  not  the  Deius  own,  that  in  very 
dc^d,  all  impenitent  finnners  muft  perifn  ?  No  doubt  they  do, 
who  talkfo  much  of  the  nece.jjity  of  repentance.  Well,  are  not 
ail  who  want  revelation,  guilty  of  grofs  (ins?  Is  not  idolatry  a 
grofs  fin?  are  tliey  not  all  plunged  in  ihcgtiilt  of  it  ?  Socrates, 
the  mofl  confiderable  perfon  for  his  virtue,  that  lived  before 
Chrifl,  cannot  be  excufed.  He  denied  his  difowning  the  gods 
cf  Athens.     He  joined  in  their    worfliip.     If  this  was  againlt 

his 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        357 

his  confcience,  the  more  was  his  fault.  And,  even  with  his  dy- 
ing breath,  he  ordered  a  cock  to  be  facrificed  to  Efculapius. 
Epicletus,  the  beft  perhaps  among  the  philofophers  who  lived 
after  Chrift,  in  h\s Enchindion,  enjoins  to  worfhip  after  the  mode 
of  the  country  where  we  live  ;  and  no  doubt  pra6^ifed  as  he 
taught.  Gentlemen,  condefcend,  if  ye  can,  upon  one,  who  was 
not  guilty  of  grofs  fins.  Did  they  repent  ?  What  evidence 
bring  you  of  it  ?  That  the  multitude  lived  and  died  impenitent, 
none  dare  queftion.  That  there  was  one  penitent  none  can 
prove.  That  the  beft  of  them  were  guilty  of  grofs  fins  cannot 
be  denied,  ^nd  there  is  no  evidence  of  their  penitence.  Yea, 
there  is  no  reafon  to  think  that  they  looked  upon  repentance  as 
a  virtue;  but  much  to  the  contrary.  Weil,  gentlemen,  do  not 
your  own  principles  conclude,  that  the  bulk  of  the  Heathen 
world  are,  in  fa6t  inevitably  loft  ?  And  that  there  is  but  little 
ground  of  hope,  and  great  reafon  to  fear,  that  it  fared  not  much 
better  with  the  few  virtuo/i  9 

2.  But  doth  the  cruelty  lie  in  the  number  of  the  perfons  fup- 
pofed  to  be  loft  ?  No.  This  cannot  be  faid.  For  if  the  caufe 
be  fufficient,  the  number  of  the  condemned  makes  not  the  con- 
demnation the  more  cruel.  Befides,  let  them  go  as  narrow- 
ly to  work  as  ihey  can,  they  are  ^^.w,  very  fetv,  for  whom  they 
can  plead  exemption  :  and  their  pleas  for  that  handful  will  be 
very  lame.  So  that  for  any  thing  I  fee,  the  Deifts,  in  this  re- 
fpedl,  are  not  like  to  be  much  more  merciful  than  we. 

3.  But  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this.  That  we  fuppofe  them 
condemned  without  a  caufe,  or  without  one  that  is  fufficient. 
But  this  we  do  not,  we  fuppofe  none  to  be  condemned,  who  are 
not  finners  againft  God,  and  tranfgreffors  of  a  law  ftamped  with 
his  authority,  which  they  had  accefs  to  know.  And  were  not 
the  heft  of  them  guilty  of  grofs  fins  ?  What  evidence  have  we  of 
their  repentance  ?  Is  it  not  juft,  even  according  to  the  Deifts*^ 
principles,  to  condemn  impenitent  finners?  Thus  we  fuppofe 
none  condemned,  but  for  their  fins. 

4.  But  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this.  That  we  fuppofe  them 
all  equally  miferable;  Socrates  to  be  in  no  better  cafe  than  Nero. 
But  this  follows  not  upon  our  affertion.  None  are  fuppofed  mi- 
ferable beyond  the  juft  demerit  of  their  fins. 

5.  Weil,  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this.  That  we  fuppofe 
their  torments  after  this  life  to  be  intenfe  in  degree,  or  of  a 
longer  continuance  than  their  fins  deferve.  This  we  are  fure 
pf,   that  their  fins  being  offences  againft  God,  deferve  a  deeper 

punifhment 


358  AN    INQ^UIRY   INTO   THE       chap.  xvin. 

puni'tliment,  than  fome  men  can  well  think  of;  and  that  God 
15  ju'i,  and  will  proportion  puniihments  exa611y  to  offences, 
and  have  a  juft  regard,  as  well  to  the  real  alleviations  as  aggra- 
vations of  every  fin.  And  if  God  has,  in  his  word,  determined 
that  every  fin  committed  againd  him,  deferves  eternal  punifh- 
ment,  no  doubt  his  judgment  is  according  to  truth*  We  are 
not  judges  in  the  cafe. 

6.  Well,  but  the  rafhnefs  and  cruelty  perhaps  lies  here,  That 
by  our  affertion  we  are  obliged  to  pafs  a  pofitive  and  peremptory 
judgment  about  the  eternal  flate  of  all  the  Heathen  world,  that 
they  are  gone  to  hell,  and  laid  under  everlafting  punifhments, 
leaving  no  room  for  the  mercy  of  God.  Bat  to  this  we  fay,  re- 
velation has  taught  us,  even  where  there  is  the  jufteft  ground 
of  fear,  to  fpeak  modeflly  of  the  eternal  condition  of  others,  and 
to  leave  the  judgment  concerning  this  to  the  righteous  God,  to 
whom  alone  it  belongs,  and  who  will  do  ?w  iniquity.  That  all 
the  Heathen  world  deferve  punifhment,  cannot,  without  impu- 
dence, be  denied.  That  God  will  pafs  any  of  them  v/ithout 
inflicting  the  punifhment  they  deferve,  neither  revelation  nor 
reafon  give  us  any  ground  to  think.  That  none  of  them  (hall 
be  punilhed  beyond  their  defervings,  fcripture  and  reafon  de- 
monltrate.  But  in  thefe  things  our  affertion  of  the  infufficiency 
of  natural  religion  is  not  concerned.  It  obliges  us  to  pafs  no 
judgment  further  than  this,  "  That  the  Heathens,  and  all  who 
**  want  revelation,  had  no  means  fufficient  to  bring  them  to  e- 
**  ternal  happinefs,  and  that  confequently  they  had  no  reafon 
**  to  expe6t  it ;  and  we  have  no  reafon  to  conclude  them  pof- 
**  feffed  of  it."  And  in  this  cafe  we  leave  them  to  be  difpofed 
of,  as  to  their  ftate,  after  this  life,  by  the  vvifdom  and  juftice 
of  God. 

7.  But  perhaps  the  cruelty  lies  in  this,  That  they  are  fuppo- 
fed  to  want  the  means  neceffary  to  attain  eternal  happinefs, 
while  yet  they  are  capable  of,  and  expofed  to  eternal  mifery 
for  their  fms.  But,  i.  How  will  the  Deifls'  prove,  That  God, 
without  a  promife,  is  obliged  to  give  man  eternal  happinefs  for 
his  obedience?  2.  Since  none  of  them  are  to  be  punilhied  beyond 
the  jull  demerit  of  their  fins,  may  not  God  righteouily  inflict 
that  puniflimenf,  whatever  it  is,  that  their  fins,  in  ftridt  juilice, 
deferve,  though  he  had  never  propofed  arevv^ard,  which  reafon 
can  never  prove  our  beft  actions  worthy  of,  even  though  we  had 
continued  innocent?  But,  3,  That  man,  in  his  prefent  cafe,  has 
io[l  the  knowledge  of  eternal  felicity,  and  the  means  of  attaining 

it, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS-       359 

it,  and  is  unable  (o  attain  it,  is  owing  not  to  any  defe6l  of 
bounty  and  goodnefs  of  God,  much  Jefs  of  juftice;  but  only 
unto  the  fin  of  man,  as  has  been  demonftrated  in  our  anfuer  to 
the  foregoing  argument,  by  rcafons  drav/n  from  nature's  light. 
Notwithftanding  of  which,  it  muft  fiill  be  owned,  that  nature's 
light  cannot  acquaint  us,  how  man  fell  into  his  p'refent  lament- 
able condition,  as  we  have  above  made  appear. 

8.  But  is  it  not  fafer  and  m*ore  mode(i,  may  fome  fav,  to 
fuppofe,  that  God  of  his  great  mercy  did,  by  revelation,  com- 
municate to  fome  of  the  befi;  of  the  Heathens,  who  improved 
nature's  light  to  the  greateft  advantage,  what  was  further  necef- 
fary  to  their  falvation,  or,  at  leaft  to  bring  them  into  a  ftate  of 
happinefs,  of  fomewhat  inferior  degree  to  that  which  is  prepar- 
ed for  Chriftians.  I  know  many  Chriftian  writers  of  old  and 
of  late  have  multiplied  hypothefis  of  this  kind  :  Some  have  fup- 
pofed  apparitions  of  angels,  faints,  nay  damned  fouls  and  de- 
vils ;  of  which  ftories  I  am  told  that  Collius  difcourfes  at  large 
in  the  fecond  book  of  his  treatife  De  Animabiis  Paganorum** 
Some  tell  us,  **  That  to  fuch  of  them  as  lived  virtuoufiy,  God 
always  at  fome  time  or  other  fent  fome  man  ©r  angel  favingly 
to  illuminate  them  f."  So  the  Areopagites.  Some  tell  us  of 
Chrift's  preaching  to  them  in  purgatory,  fo  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  ;  fome  will  have  them  inftrudled  by  the  Sibylls,  as  the 
fame  author  fays  elfewhere  ;  fome  talk  of  their  commerce  with 
the  Jews,  in  which  way  no  doubt  fome  of  them  came  to  faving 
acquaintance  with  God  ;  others  fay,  that  upon  their  worthy 
improvement  of  their  naturals^  God  might  and  did  reveal  Chrift 
to  them  and  fptrituals,  becaufe  habenti  dabiterX*  So  Arminius. 
And  of  this  Herbert  frequently  intimates  his  approbation,  but 
with  an  evident  contradidion  to,  and  fubverfion  of  his  whole 
i\oxy  about  the  fufficiency  of  natural  religion.  Befides,  the 
bottom  of  this  is  a  rotten  Pelagian  fuppofition  of  a  merit  in  their 
good  works :  and  that  habenti  dabiter,  fpoken  of  in  another 
cafe,  after  all  the  pains  fome  are  to  ftretch  it,  will  not  reach  this 
cafe  :  and  after  all  we  are  left  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  way  where- 
in they  will  have  fupernaturals  communicated  to  them.  The 
late  ingenious  author  of  the  Conference  with  a  Theijiy  fuppofcs 
a  place  provided  for  the  fober  Pagans  in  another  world,  where- 
in they  Ihall  enjoy  a  confiderable  happinefs  $,  and  wrefls  what 

our 

*  De  coelefti  Kierar.     Ch.  g.  +  Strong.  Lib.  .6. 

X  «  To  him  that  hath  fnall  be  given.** 
§  Nicol.  Cofi/er.  P^rt  2,  pag.  go. 


3^0        AN    INQ^UIRY     INTO    THE     chap,  kvirii 

our  Lord  fays  to  his  difciples,  John   xiv.  3.  of  tht   rnany  inaU" 
fions  that  are  in  his  Father  5  houfe,  to  favour  his  notion.     But 
now  as  to  all  thefe  fuppofitions  and  others  of  the  fame  alloy, 
however  their  authors  may  pleafe  themfelves  in   them,  I  think 
they  are  to  be  rejefted.     Nor  is  this  from  any  defefl  of  chari- 
ty to  the   Heathens,  but  becaufe  they  are  fupported  by  no  foun- 
dation, either  in  fcripture  or   reafon.     However  fome  of  them 
are  poffible,  yet  generally   fpeaking,  none  of  them  have  the 
countenance  fo  much  as  of  a  probable  argument.     The   fcrip- 
ture  proof,  adduced  by  that  laft  mentioned   ingenious  author^ 
has  no    weight    in    it.     There  is  no    countenance  given    to  it 
from  the  context,  nor  any  other   place  of  fcripture,  and  I  can- 
not approve  of  his  boldnsfs  in  i^rctching  our  Lord's  words  be- 
yond what  his  fcope  requires.     But  thefe  things  have  been  con- 
lidered  at  length  by  others,  whom    the   reader  may   confult  ** 
All  thefe  fuppofitions  are  at  beft  but  ingenious  fancies,  where- 
with their  authors  may  pleafe  themfelves,  but  can  never  fatisfy 
others.     Nor  can  they  be   of  any  advantage  to  the   Heathens. 
I   think  I   have  made    it  fufficlently  appear  in   the   foregoing 
difcourfe,  that  they  wanted  vicans  fufficient  to  lead  them  \o  fal" 
vatiorif  and  fo  had  no  ground  to  fupport  a  reafonable   hope  of 
it.     It  is  granted   even  by  thofe,  whofe  peculiar  hypothefis  in 
divinity  lead  them  to  be  moll  favourable  to  the  Heathens,  that 
they  had  no  Jederal  certainty  of  falvation  ;  and   for  any  unco- 
venanted  mercy j  of  which  fome  talk,  I  know  nothing  about  it. 
Scripture  is  filent.     Reafon  can  determine  nothing  in  it ;  and 
therefore  difputes  about  it  are  to  be  waved.     It  is  unwarantable 
curiofity  for  men  to  pry  into  the  fecrets  of  God  ;  thiyigs  that  art 
revealed  do  belong  to  us.    Where  revelation  (iops  we  are  to  flop. 
Even  Herbert  himfelf  dare  carry  the  matter  no  further  than  a 
may  be  ',  and  what  may  be,  may  oct  be. 


C  H  A  P. 


See  Anth.  Tuckney,  Appendix  to  his  Sermon  on  A^s  iv,  12. 


FRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      361 


CHAP.      XIX. 

Wherein  Herbert's  Reafons  for  publifJiing  his  Bdoks  in  Defefice 
of  Deif?n  are  examined  and  found  weak, 

r HE  learned  Herbert,  toward  the  clcfe  of  hisbook  Be  Re^ 
ligione  Laici^  to  juftify  the  publication  of  his  thoughts,  as 
to  a  catholic  religio??.,  common  to  all  mankind,  mentions  fevetl 
fuppofed  advantages  of  this  opinion,  or  fo  many  pleas  for  De- 
ilm.     What  weight  there  is  in  them,  we  fhall  now  confider. 

He  introduces  himfelf  with  a  proteftation  that  he  publillied 
not  his  book  with  any  ill  defij^n  againft  Chriflianity,  which  h6 
honours  with  the  title  of  optima  rcligio  :  But  on  the  contrary 
fays,  That  he  aimed  at  eftablilhing  it,  and  intended  to  ftrength- 
en  true  faith,  "  Benique  me  aniino  adeo  non  optima  religioni  in* 
**  fenfoy  aut  a  vera  fide  alieno  traBatum  hunc  edidijfe  tejior  ;  ut 
**  utramquefiatuminare  in  animoJmhuerim^ i  &c. 

I  (hall  not  dive  into  his  defigns  ;  for  which  he  has  long  ago 
accounted  unto  the  only  competent  Judge.  But  of  the  defign, 
or  rather  tendency  of  his  books,  we  may  fafely  judge.  And  as 
to  this  I  fay,  that  if  it  h  granted,  that  the  fcriptures  arc  the  only 
flandard  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  which  cannot  modeHly  be 
denied  ;  I  (hall  upon  this  fuppofitiort  undertake  to  maintain  a- 
gainll  any  who  will  defend  him.  That  his  books  aim  at  the  ut- 
ter fubveriion  of  the  Chriilian  religion,  that  his  principles  over- 
throw entirely  the  authority  of  the  fcriptures,  and  are  not  only 
inconfiftent  with,  but  dellrudive  to  the  effentials  of  ChriRianity. 
And  I  further  add,  that  this  is  every  where  fo  obvious  in  his 
writings,  that  it  will  require  a  flrange  flretch  of  charity,  to  be- 
lieve our  author  could  be  ignorant  of  it. 

Our  author  having  told  us  what  was  not  his  defign,  proceeds 
next  to  condefcend  upon  the  reafons  inducing  him  to  alTert  this 
common  religion.     And 

I.  He  teiis  us  that  he  maintains  this  common  religion,  "  Q^itod 
**  provid&ntiam  divinam^  &c.  Becaufe  it  "  vindicates  the  univer- 

Y  y  *«  fal 

*  Herbert  Relig.  Laici,  pag.  28.—"  In  fine,  I  profefs  that  I  have 
"  publiihed  this  treatife  with  a  mind  fo  far  from  being  hoftile  to  the 
"  beft  religion,  oraverfe  to  the  true  faith,  that  I  intended  to  eUablilb 
«  both." 


^2  AN    iNQ_UiRY   INTO   THE         chap,  xix- 


**  fal  Providence  o^God,  God's  principal  attribute,  v/hofe  dignit}^ 
*'  can  never  be  fufficiently  fupported.  Neither  do  any  particu- 
'*  lar  reb'gion,  or  faith  (to  give  you  our  author's  ow^n  words, 
"  Fides  quantumvis  laxa)  maintain  this,  ib  as  to  reprefent 
*'  God's  care  of  all  mankind,  in  providing  for  them  fuch  com- 
**  mon  principles  as  thofe  contained  in  our  catholick  truths." 

Here  our  author  teaches  two  things,  and  I  think  them  both 
falfe.  (l.)  He  tells  u.>,  "  That  his  catholick  religion  vindicates 
**  the  univerfal  providence  of  God,  or  ferves  to  maintain  its 
**  honour."  This  1  think  i:\\{^.  The  foundation  of  it  we  have 
proved  to  be  not  only  precarious,  but  falfe.  For  we  have  cleared, 
that  his  five  articles  did  not  univerflilly  obtain  ;  and  further, 
that  if  they  had,  they  were  not  fufficient  to  happinefs.  Yea,  our 
author  himfelf,  after  he  has  told  us,  that  the  univerfal  providence 
of  God  cannot  be  maintained,  unlefs  vyc  fuppofe  him  to  have 
provided  ail  his  creatures,  in  the  means  neceiTary  for  obtaining 
their  happinefs,  next  informs  us  that  he  has  provided  man  in 
no  other  means,  fave  thefe  five  articles  *.  And  he  further  tells 
las  in  his  words  above  quoted,  that  he  dare  not  pofitively  fay 
they  are  fufficient,  nor  can  we  be  fure  of  it,  fince  it  depends 
upon  God's  fecret  judgments,  which  we  cannot  certainly  know.f 
And  we  have  heard  Blount  above  own,  That  Deifm  is  not  fafe, 
unlefs  it  be  pieced  out  by  fome  help  from  Chrifiianity  J.  Well, 
is  this  the  wav  our  author  aiTerts  the  honour  of  divine  nniverfal 
Providence,  firft  to  tell  us,  that  its  honour  cannot  be  maintained 
without  fuppofing  di  fufficient  religion  iinivcr/aliy  to  have  ohtaiw 
td,  and  then  to  tell  us  that  he  is  not  furej  that  ever  there  was 
fuch  a  religion  ?  Is  not  this  the  plain  way  to  bring  the  univerfal 
Providence  of  God  in  qucflion? 

Again,  2cl]v,  Our  author  teaches,  "  That  no  particular  reli- 
**  gion  can  fupport  the  honour  of  univerfal  Providence."  This 
I  take  to  be  alio  falfe.  The  Chriftian  religion  alferts  and  proves, 
that  God,  who  has  created  all  things,  preferves  them,  and  go- 
verns them  in  a  way  fuitable  to  their  nature  and  circumftances, 
and  in  fo  far  clears  the  equity  of  God's  proceedings  with  the 
Heathen  world,  in  particular,  as  may  fatisfy  fober  men.  It 
acquaints  us,  that  God  did,  at  firft,  provide  man  in  a  coveniint- 
fecurity  fo,r  eternal  happinefs,  and  in  means  fufiicient  for  obtain- 
ing 

*  DeRel.  Laici,  pag.   i,  4,  f  De  Rel.  Gentil.  p3g.  217. 

X  Oracles  of  Kcafon  pag.  Hy. 


PRINCIPLlS  of  the  MODERxV  deists.       363 

jng  of  it;  that  man,  by  his  own  fault,  incapacitated  himfelf  for 
the  ufe  of  tbele  means,  and  forfeited  the  advantage  of  the  cove- 
nant-fecurity  ;  that  Gcd,  in  juRice  hath  left  the  Heathen  world 
under  the  difadvantcige  of  that  forfeiture;  that  during  the  time 
he  fees  meet  to  fpave  them,  he  governs  ihem,  in  fuch  a  way  as 
is  fuitable  to  their  Japfed  ftate,  of  which  we  have  fpoke  before. 
We  confefs  we  are  not  able  to  explain  all  the  hard  chapters 
in  the  book  of  Providence,  and  folve  every  difficulty  relating 
thereto ;  but  this  affords  no  ground  for  the  denial  either  of 
God's^eaeral  or  fpecial  providence.  As  the  difficulties  about 
God's  OiTiaifcience,  omniprefence,  eternity,  &c.  will  not  jufti- 
fy  a  denial  of  thele  attributes,  or  the  exigence  of  a  Deity  veRed 
with  them;  fo  neither  will  the  difficulties  about  Providence  juf- 
tify  a  refufal  of  if  ;  and  if  this  vindication  of  Providence  fail  of 
giving  fatisfadion,  I  am  fure  Herbert's  will  never  fatisfy. 

What  our  author  adds  about  his  fides  guantumvis  laxa,  which 
he  fuppofes  fome  to  fland  up  for,  and  maintain  as  a  fufficient 
religion,  I  do  not  v/el  underhand,  But  yet  {\nc.c  this  expref- 
iion  is  very  often  ufed  in  the  writings  of  this  author,  in  re- 
proach cf  particular  religions,  efpecially  the  Chriftian,  which 
lays  the  greateft  firefs  upon  faith,  it  cannot  be  paffed  without 
fome  remark.  That  which  our  author  fecms  to  intend  by  this 
fides  quaniumvh  laxa,  01  *'  faith  how  lax  foever  it  may  be,"  is 
a  faith  that  confiils  in  a  general  aflent  to  the  truth  of  the  doc- 
trines, without  any  correfpondent  influence  upon  prad^ice.  And 
he  would  have  us  to  believe  that  the  Chriftian  religion,  or,  at 
leall,  Chriftians,  do  reckon  this  fufficient  to  falvation.  This 
is  a  bafe  and  difino^enuous  calumny.  And  our  author  could  not 
but  know  it  to  be  fuch,  if  \\q  was  acquainted  either  with  the 
fcriptures,  or  the  writings  and  lives  of  that  fet  of  Cbrifiians  a- 
gainfl  whom  this  calumny  is  particularly  levelled,  who  unani- 
moully  teach,  th:u  the  faith  that  is  available,  is  chat  which 
works  by  love,  and  is  to  be  found  pnly  In  liiem  who  are  created 
m  Ghrift  Jcjus  to  good  works.  If  Herbert  was  a  (iranger 
to  the  o^ne  or  the  other,  he  was  the  unmeeteft  perlon  in  the 
world  to  fet  up  for  a  judge  and  cenfurer  of  them. 

2.  The  next  advantage  that  Herbert  condclcends  on,  cf  his 
catholick  religion,  is,  Quod prohamfacvJtai&mhomtni  infitarum 
confer  jnationem,  ufumaue  doceat.  Nulla  enim  datur  Veritas  c a- 
tkolica,  qua;  non  in  faro  interno  defcribitur,  vel  non  illuc  Jaltem 
nece/fario  rcducitar'K  That  is,  "  Tl)is  alone  tcaclies  man  the  due 

Vie 

*  Herberi:  Rel,  1  aici,  pag.  28. 


364  AN  INQUIRY   INTO    THE        chap.  xix. 

**  ufe  and  application  of  his  faculties,"  But  this  is  only  our  au- 
thor's aiTertion.  Chiirtianity  is  no  lefs  confiQent  with  the  due 
ufe  of  cur  faculties  and  their  application  to  their  proper  objecfls, 
than  our  author's  religion.  It  deftroys  none  of  them,  lays  none 
of  themaiide,  and  does  violence  to  none  of  them  ;  but  reftores, 
improves  and  elevates  them  to  their  moil  noble  and  proper  ufe. 

Our  author  adds,  for  a  confirmation  of  his  affertion,  that 
there  is  no  catholick  verity,  but  what  either  is  infcribed  in  the* 
mind,  or  what  may  be  reduced  to  fome  innate  truth.  Whether 
there  is  any  verity  infcribed  in  the  mind  In  our  author's  fenfe,  I 
queftion.  Mr.  Locke  has  proven,  that  there  is  none  fuch,  and 
in  particular  has  evinced  that  our  author's  five  articles  are  not 
innate  truths,  no  not  according  to,  the  defcription  he  himfelf 
gives  of  fuch  notices.  He  examines  the  chara6ters  of  innate 
truth  given  by  ovir  author,  and  undertakes  tofhew  them  not  ap- 
plicable to  his  five  articles*. 

3.  Our  author  tells  us,  he  embraced  this  catholick  religion, ' 
giiod  Zficontr over/a  a  controxKrfis  diftinguat\ ,  &c.  It  is  need- 
lefs  to  repeat  all  our  author's  words  here.  What  he  fays  is  in 
fhort  this,  That  "  particular  religion  (and  here  he  mufi  be  under- 
flood  to  fpeak  particularly  of  Chriftiaoity)  contains  aitflcre  and 
frightful  doBriiies  that  prejudge  form  men  oj  Jqueamijh  Jlomachs 
at  all  religion  (and  is  it  to  be  wondered  ar,  that  men  who  have 
no  heart  to  any  religion,  are  eafily  difgufted  i)  But  our  author 
has  provided  them  with  one  that  will  not  offend  the  mod  nice 
and  delicate  palate,  as  Qox\{\'^m%o^ principles  univerfally  agreed 
to  ;  which  he  fuppofes  fuch  perfons  will  readily  clofe  with,  and 
io  retain  fome  religion,  whereas  otherwife  they  would  have 
none. 

Here  our  author  evidently  defigns  a  thruft  at  the  Chriftian  re- 
ligion, and  infmuates  that  it  is  (lutFed  with  aujiere  and  horrid  doc- 
trines' I  know  full  well  what  ase  the  do6kines  he  particularly 
aims  at:  the  doctrines  concerning  the  corruption  of  mans 
nature,  the  decrees  of  God,  the  fail sfatlion  of  Chriflf  are  par- 
ticularly intended.  But  if  theie  doclrines  are  confidered  as 
delivered  in  the  fcriptures,  or  taught  by  Chriftians  according  to 
the  fcriptures,  Vv^hat  is  there  olTenfive  in  them  ?  What  horrid 
or  frightful  ? 

I  do 

*  Locke's  EiTay  en  Human.  Under.  Ro(jk  i.  Cii.  .  §  15,  16,  17 
18,  19. 

f  *'  Becaufc  it  dillinguiflies  uncontroverted  points  from  thofc  which 
*<  are  controverted.'* 


PRINCIPLES  QF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       3^5 

I  do  iadeeti  grant,  that  fpme  Chriftians,  through  their  weak-« 
Mieis,  without  any  iil-defign,  have  lo  reprerented,  or  rather  mif- 
reprefented  lome  pf  theie  points,  parucuiarly  concerning  the 
decrees  of  God,  as  to  give  oifcace  to  lober  perlbtis  of  ail  per- 
luafions.  But  ^s  to  this,  they,  and  they  ouiy,  are  to  bear  the 
blame.  As  for  the  dccirines,  What  have  they  done  ?  Mud 
the  fauh  of  the  profeiTors  be  call  on  the  religion  they  profefs? 
This  no  reafonabie  man  will  allow  to  be  juft. 

I  do  iikewile  acknowledge,  that  whereas  there  are  different 
fentlments  among  ChriOians  concerning  fome  of  thefe  points  ; 
and  fome  of  the  contending  parties  have  fo  unfairly  ftated,  and 
foully  milreprefented  the  opinions  of  their  oppofers,  in  the  dif- 
guife  of  imaginary  confequences,  or  confcquences,  at  leaft,  de- 
nied and  abhorred  by  the  rriaintainers  of  the  opinions  they  op- 
pofe,  as  to  give  fome  umbrage  to  this,  ftartle  weak  men,  and 
prejudge  them  againil  religion.  This  they  do  to  expofe  their 
adverfaries,  and  frighten  others  from  the  reception  of  their  fen- 
timents.  For  fuch  1  can  make  no  excufe.  The  practice  itfelf 
is  fcandalouily  difingenuous,  and  can  admit  of  no  reafonabie 
vindication,  and  fo  fair  an  occal'ion  being  given,  1  cannot 
pafs  it  without  a  remark.  A  notable  inftance  of  this  fort  I  meet 
with  in  a  book  juft  now  come  to  hand-  The  ingenious  author  of 
thejiiort  Method  luith  the  Deijlsy  in  a  letter  dire£fed  to  Charles 
Giidon,  newly  recovered  from  Deifm,  cautions  him  againft  the 
DifTenters  ,  and  to  enforce  his  caution,  prefents  him  with  fuch  an 
account  of  their  opinions,  *;s  is  indeed  fuited  to  frighten  the 
reader.  He  tells  him,  that  they  maintain,  **  That  God  fees  no 
*'  fin  in  the  eledl,  let  them  live  never  fo  wickedly.  They 
**  damn  the  far  greater  part  of  the  v.'orld,  by  irreverfible  de- 
crees of  reprobation,  and  fay,  that  their  good  works  are  hate-? 
ful  to  God  ;  and  that  it  is  not  podibly  in  their  power  to  be 
faved,  let  them  believe  as  they  will,  and  live  never  fo  religi- 
oully;  They  take  away  free  will  in  man,  and  make  him  a 
perfect  machine.     They   make  God   the  author  of  fin,  to 

"  create   men  on   purpofe  to  damn  them  ; they  make   his 

**  promifes  and  threatenings  to  be  of  no  effe6f,  nay,  to  be  a 
**  fort  of  burlefquing,  and  infulting  thofe  whom  he  has  made 
**  miferable,  which  is  an  hideous  blafphemy  *."  But  to  what 
purpofe  is  all  this  faid  ?  1.  Did  not  the  writer  know,  That  this 
is  not  a  reprefentation  at  all  of  the  opinions  m.aintained  by  the 
pifTenters,  but  of  the  confequences  tacked  to  them  by  their  ad- 

verfaries  I 
*  Letter  fubjoined  to  the  Deift's  Manuel,  pag.  22,  33. 


<( 


n 


366         AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE         chap.xix. 

verfarles?  Does  he  not  know,  that  they  deteft  and  abhor  thefe 
pofitions  as  much  as  he  does,  that  they  refufe  thefe  to  be  conTe- 
quences  of  them  ?  Is  it  then   candid  to  offer  that  as   their  opini- 
ons, H'hich  they  abhor,  and  wFiich  ihey  will  not  allow  to  follow 
i^pon  iheir  opinion?   i\gain,  2.   Doth  not  this  gentleman  know 
that    the   principles   to  which  lie   has  tacked  thefe  confequen- 
ces,  are  the  very  doctrines  taught   in  the  artkl^s  of  the  Churck 
oj  England,  unanimoufly  maintained   by  ajl  the    great  men  of 
that  church,  till  Bi(hop  Laud's  days;   which  were  preached   by 
them  in  the  pulpit,  taught  in  the  fchools,  and  upon  all  occafieng 
avouched  as  the  do^lrine   of  the  Church  of  P.ngland  ;  and,  as 
fuch,  ro  this  very  day  are  owned  by  no  inconfiderable  number  of 
that  church  ?  With  what  jullice  then,  or  ingenuity,  can  he  call 
this  the  doclrine  of  the  DifTenters  ?  3.  From  whom  does  he  ex- 
pe6\  credit  to  this  difingenuous  account  of  the  Diffenter's  opini- 
on ?  Such  as  know  them,  will  believe  nothing  upon  the  readin<> 
of  this  paiTage ;   but  that  the  writer  either   underftood    not  the 
opinions  he  undertook  to  reprefent,  or  that  againfl  his  light,  he 
mifreprefented  them,  and  to  is  never  to  be  credited  again,  with' 
out  good  proof,  in  any  thing  he  fays  of  them.     4.   Was  it   the 
author's  defign  to  gain  a  profelyte  to  the  oppolite  opinions?  This 
1  believe  it  was.     But  this  is  the  moft  unlucky  way  of  manage- 
ment in  the  world  ;  for  if  his  difciple  is  a  man  of  fcnfe,  he  will 
be  fhy  of  believing  that   fuch  moniirous  opinions  can  be  receiv- 
ed by  a   body  of  men,  among  whom,  there   mufl:  be  owned  by 
their  worfl  enemies,  to  be  not  a  few  learned  and  fober.     And 
if  he  find  himfelf  abufed,  upon  fearch,  may  he  not  be  tempted^ 
not  only  to  reje6t  this  account,  but  all  that  he  received  upon  the 
fame  authority  ?  When  perfons  of  fenfe,  who  have  been  abufed, 
are  undeceived,  they  are  wont  ever  after  to  incline  to  favoura- 
ble thoughts  of  the  perfons  and  principles  they  were  prejudged 
againft  ;  and  to  fufpect  that  caufe  of  weaknefs,  which  cannot  be 
fupported,  but    by  fuch   mean  and  unmanly  fhifts,    as  this  of 
reprefenting  the  oppofite  opinion.     5.   If  theadverfe  party  fhall 
take  the  fame  courfe,  what  a  fine  work  fhall  v/e  have  ?  And  to 
fpeak  modefily,  they  v/ant  not  a  colourable  pretence  for  a  re- 
tortion.  But  who  fhail  be  the  gainers?  Neither  of  the  contend- 
ing parties  furely :   For  men  will  never  be  beafea  from  their  o- 
piuions  by  calumnies  that  they  know  to  be  unjufi.     None  will 
gain,  {^iMi  they,  wiio   are  lying  at  the  catch,   for  pretences  \o 
countenance  them  in  the  reje£\ion  of  the  Chriftian  religion.   It 
is  none  of  my  buftnefs  to  debate  this  coiitrcverfy  with  thi?  author. 

If 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       367 

If  he  has  any  thing  new  to  advance  upon  thefe  heads,  let  him 
advance  it,  he  will  find  antagonifts  in  the  Church  of  England, 
able  perhaps  to  cope  with  him,  though  the  Diiienters  Ihould 
fail.  This  gentleman  had  managed  his  oppofition  with  more 
modefty  and  ingenuity,  if  he  had  attentively  perufed  the  learned 
Bilhop  of  Sarum's  difcourfe  on  the  17th  article  of  the  Church  of 
England.  But  I  hope  this  author,  upon  fecond  thou^ghts,  when 
his  pailion  is  over,  will  be  afhamed  of  what  he  has  written. 

But  now  to  return  to  Herbert  and  the  Deifts.  If  we  abflra6l 
from  thefe  two  abufes,  and  confider  thedo6)rines  of  ChriPiianity 
as  reprefented  in  the  fcriptures,  or  according  to  them,  there  is 
no  ground  to  charge  ihem  with  any  thing  frightful,  or  ofii! 
confequence  to  religion.  Yea,  I  dare  be  fo  bold  as  to  fay.  That  if 
practical  religion, confifting  in  godlinefs,  righteoufnefs  and  fobri- 
ety,  isany  v/here  tobefound  in  the  world,  it  is  to  be  found  airongfl 
Ihofe,  as  readily  as  any  where  elfe,  and  in  as  eminent  a  degree, 
who  have  been  trained  up  in  the  belief,  and  under  the  influence 
of  thofe  very  do6trines,  which  fome,  and  particularly  Herbert, 
would  perfuade  us  to  be  fo  horrid,  as  to  frighten  men  at  once  out 
of  their  wits  and  religion.  If  it  be  fald,  that  this  is  not  owing 
to  the  influence  of  thefe  principles.  I  anfwer,  This,  at  leaft, 
proves  thofe  principles  not  inconfiftent  with  practical  religion, 
in  as  much  as  they,  who  believe  them,  are  eminent  in  it ;  and, 
if  we  inquire  of  them,  what  has  influenced  their  walk^  they  are  rea- 
dy to  atteft,  that  the  belief  of  thefe  very  truths  has  had  the  principal 
influence  upon  that  efFe6t ;  and  to  offer  a  rational  account  of  the 
tendency  of  thefe  dodlrines  to  promote  practical  religion. 

Now  we  have  wiped  off  the  ini'inuated  reproach,  defigned 
by  our  author,  againli  the  Chridian  religion.  Let  us  next  con- 
fider what  there  is  in  this  plea.  He  tells  us,  His  religion  con- 
(lOs  of  incontroverted  articles,  and  fo  will  frighten  no  body. 
But,  I.  This  is  not  true  in  fa6\,  as  we  have  demonftrated  above. 
His  articles  have  been  controverted.  The  fufficiency  of  them 
has  been  believed  by  very  few.  Again,  2.  Will  our  author 
fay.  That  nothing  is  neceflarv,  to  religion,  which  is  controver- 
ted ?  Will  the  Deifts  undertake  this  point  ?  If  fo,  their  religion 
is  loft,  as  is  evident  from  what  has  been  demonftrated  above. 
3.  This  no  more  proves  our  author's  five  articles  to  be  a  fuffici- 
ent  religion,  than  it  proves  one  of  them  alone  (o  be  fuch.  He 
who  owns  no  more  in  religion,  but  this  only,  thtrt  is  a  God, 
may  as  well  plead,  that  religion  retains  only  what  is  incontro- 
vertible. But  the  Deifts'  will  fay,  there  are  other  points  neceifa- 

rv. 


1^58  An  INQ^UIRY   into    TK£  chap.  XIX. 

ry.  Well  does  not  this  give  mean  anfwerto  their  argument,  when 
I  lav,  there  are  other  points  neceflary  befidcs  their  fire  articles- 
4.  Whereas  he  would  perfuade  us,  that  no  man  will  fcruple  his 
his  religion  :  Is  not  this  enough  to  make  any  reafcnable  man  (hy 
of  admitting  it,  that  its  author  and  inventer  dare  not  fay  pofi- 
tively,  that  it  is  fufficient  to  ani'.ver  the  purpofe,  for  which 
it  is  deiigned,  and  that  others  undertake  to  demondrate,  that 
if  it  is  trufted  to,  it  will  prove  afoul-ruining  cheat?  In  a  wcrdj 
it  is  not  worth  the  while  to  calculate  a  religion  for  thofe,  who 
will  admit  nothing  in  religion,  but  what  is  incontroverted:  for^ 
in  fliort,  they  are  for  no  religion.  And  I  think  we  have  in  par- 
ticular evinced,  that  our  author's  five  articles  will  be  too  hard 
in  digeftion  for  fuch  delicate  ftomachs. 

4,  Our  author  tells  us,  that  he  embraced  this  cathclick  reli- 
s:ion,  Ouod  concordus  communis  fubfhuclionan  agaty  &c** 
That  is,  in  fhort,  let  all  the  world  agree  to  the  fufficiency  of 
our  auti:or's  five  articles,  and  leave  all  other  things  to  be  re-* 
jeered  or  received  as  trifles,  not  neceffary  to  be  dlfputed  about, 
and  then  there  is  an  end  of  all  the  contefts,  then  there  is  a 
foundation  laid  for  everlafting  peace,  and  the  golden  age  will 
be  retrieved,  Jam  redit  tt  virgOf  redeiint  Saturnia  regnal* 

This  trifle  deferves  rather  pily  than  an  anfwer.  What  \  will 
all  the  world  agree  that  this  religion  is  fufficient,  while  its  in- 
venter durfi:  not  fay  fo  ? 

5.  He  embraced  it,  ^^  Q^uod  authoritatem  majeftat&mq -,  indu- 
**  biam  religioni,  et  hierarchic  indt  pQlid^quz  conciliate''  &c^ 
That  is,  "  becaufe  it  conciliates  refpe6l  to  religion,  to  the  cc- 
"  clefiaflical  hierarchy,  and  civil  government."  Religion  will  be 
refpc6ied,  when  it  requires  nothing  but  what  is  neceffary.  Church 
and  Hate  will  be  refpeiiled  when  it  punifnes  nothing  but  tranf- 
greffions  againft  incontroverted  atticlc?. 

But  is  not  this  to  trifle  with  a  wltnefs  ?  The  weaknefs  of  this 
plea  is  fo  obvious,  that  I  may  well  fpare  my  pains  in  expofing  it« 
Will  it  maintain  the  dignity  of  religion  to  confine  it  to  a  number 
of  articles,  which  for  any  thing  we  know,  or  the  Deifls  know^ 
may  cheat  us  of  our  reward  in  the  end,  fince  they  cannot  posi- 
tively alfure  us  of  its  fuiriciency,  and  we  are  pofitively  fure  it  is 
not  fufficient?  Will  it  maintain  the  honour  of  church  officers, 
to  admit  a  religion,  which  fubverts  the  very  foundation  of  all 

refpedt 
*  «  Becaufe  it  lays  a  foundation  for  common  concord." 
f  "Now  Aftra  returns,  the  reign  of  Saturn  returns." 


FRINCIFLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       369 

s-erpe6t  to  them,  viz.  The  divine  inftitution  of  their  order?  As 
for  the  advantage  of  it  to  ihe  civil  government,  the  DeiOs  may- 
offer  it  to  the  confideration  of  the  next  parliament,  and  they 
will  confider  whether  it  is  proper  to  conciliate  rcfped  to  the  ci- 
vil government. 

6.  Our  author  embraced  his  religion,  Q^ucd  adeo  non  violiat 
rdigionenii  ut  ejus  fevcritoJein  Jli7nulu7n  addat.  That  is,  **  It  is 
•'  io  far  from  favouring  liberty  in  fin,  that  it  urges  harder  to  vir- 
**  tue,  (fevere  virtue)  than  revealed  religion."  There  is  no 
hope  of  pardon  here  upon  the  fatisfa6lion  of  another.  Men 
muft  work  for  their  life,  and  when  they  fail,  they  muft  fatisfy 
by  their  repentance. 

Well,  but  do  they,  who  teach  the  nece-llity  of  fatisfa£lion, 
exclude  repentance  ?  And  if  they  make  both  fati3fa6iion  and 
repentance  abfolutely  necefiary,  though  each  in  its  own  order 
and  place,  to  forgivenefs,  methinks  they  will  yet  have  the  ad- 
vantage in  point  of  feverity.  Again,  but  what  if  repentance 
will  not  fatisfy  ?  If  this  is  fo,  and  our  author  feclude  all  other 
fatlsfa6\ion,  will  not  his  religion  lead  men  rather  to  defpair  thaa 
virtue, 

7.  Our  author*s  lafl:  inducement  was,  Oiiod  facrarum  liUra^ 
■rum  fini  ultimo  intentioniq  quadret J  &c.  That  is,  "  becaufeihis 
*'  catholick  religion  aniwers  the  ultimate  defign  of  the  fcrip- 
**  tures.  All  the  do<5trine5  taught  there  level  at  the  efta- 
^*  bliiliment  of  thefe  five  catholick  verities,  as  we  have  often 
"  hinted;  there  is  neither  facrament,  rite  or  ceremony,  there 
**  enjoined,  but  what  aims  (or  feems  to  aim)  at  the  eftabiifli^ 
**   ment  of  thefe  five  articles." 

8.  But  is  not  this  a  notable  jeft.  Our  author  would  perfuade 
us,  That  his  religion  anfwers  the  great  end  of  the  fcriptures, 
better  than  that  religion,  which  the  fcriptures  themfelves  teach. 
If  our  author  fays  not  this,  he  fays  nothing.  If  the  end  of  the 
fcriptures  is  not  good,  it  is  not  for  the  honour  of  our  author's 
religion  that  it  agrees  with  it  :  If  it  is  good,  and  the  religion 
taught  in  the  fcriptures  themfelves,  anfwcr  their  own  defign 
befl:,  why  then,  1  would  chufe  that  religion,  and  leave  our  au" 
thor  to  enjoy  his  own  :  If  he  favs,  his  anfwers  it  better,  then  I 
would  defire  to  know  where  the  compliment  lies,  that  he  de- 
figned  to  the  fcriptures.  But  I  defire  to  know  further  of  the 
Deifts,  Whether  do  the  fcriptures  teach  any  thing  befides  thefe 
articles,  to  be  necelfary  ?  Where  do  the  fcriptures  tell  that  thefe 
are  fufiicient  ?  Are  divine  inditutions,  facraments,  &c.  necef]ary 

Z  7.  tov/ard 


370  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE  chap.  xx. 

tov/ard  the  compaiTTng  of  the  entls  of  rclij>ion  ?  If  they  are  not, 
how  does  it  commc'id  our  author's  religion,  that  it  quadrates 
with  the  defign  of  fhefe  inrtitutloris?  If  they  are  neceirary  and 
ufefal,  this  Catholick  religion  is  at  a  lofs  that  wants  them,  I 
am  lenfibJe  our  author  has  cautioned  againft  this,  when  he  tells 
us,  That  they  either  do,  or  feem  to  aim  at  fhis.  1  fee  old  birds 
are  not  caught  with  chaff.  Now  1  have  found  it.  This  catho- 
lick religion,  will  really  ferve  the  purpofe,  that  revealed  truths 
and  inftitutions  do  only  feem  to  aim  at.  But  after  ail,  this  is 
but  fay  and  noX  proof  And  I  will  undertake  to  Ihew  againft  all 
the  DeiRs  under  heaven,  that  the  confinement  of  religion  tothefe 
five  articles,  as  taught  by  the  light  of  nature,  is  not  only  not 
agreeable  to  the  principal  defign  of  the  fcriptures,  but  inconfift- 
ent  fvith  it. 

Thus  I  have  confidered  the  inducements  which  led  Herbert  to 
embrace  this  catholick  religion,  and  found  them  wanting.  And 
I  muit  fay,  if  this  noble  author  had  not  been  itraitened  by  a  bad 
caufe,  that  is  not  capable  of  a  rational  defence,  his  learning, 
which  v/as  very  confiderable,  could  not  but  have  aHcrded  him 
better  pleas.  Chaalcs  Blount,  in  the  clofc  of  hisReligio  Laici, 
tells  us,  It  was  f :  r  the  iair.e  reafons  he  embraced  Dcifm,  andt 
copies  after  Herbert,  with  fome  little  variety.  What  he  has, 
th  it  our  author  has  taken  notice  of  in  this  place,  will  occur  in 
the  next  chap'er,  where  rhey  are  again  repeated  under  another 
form.  M^n  that  have  little  to  fay  have  need  to  hujkand  it  -welly 
and  77iakc  all  the  itnprovemeni  of  it  that  the')  can* 


CHAP..      XX. 

Wherein  the  Queries  offered  by  Herbert  and  Blount,  for  proving 
thefujfiaency  of  thtir  fve  Articles  are  examined, 

THE  learned  Herbert  in  an  appendix  to  hisReligio  Laici, 
moves  fcm.e  objections  againft  hinifelf,  but  fearing  after 
he  has  laid  all  he  can,  fome  may  remain  unfatisFied  dill,  he  be- 
taki-s  himfelf  to  another  courfe,  and  edavs  to  difpuje  his  oppo- 
fers  into  a  compliance  with  his  fentiments  by  (Queries.  Of  this 
iort  he  propoies  feven.  Charles  Blount  concludes  his  Religio 
Laici  in  the  fame  method,  with  this  ditFerence,  that  he  has  ad- 
ded oiher  feven  que.ies,  making  in  all  fourteen,  and  prefixed 
this  title,   Queries  proving  the  validity  oj  the  five  Articles* 

The 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      371 

The  arguments  couched  in  thefe  queries,  in  lb  far  as  they  tend 
to  prove  the  fuffitiency  of  this  catholick  religion,  are  not  new, 
but  materijily  the  fame,  which  we  have  formerly  confidered. 
The  method  is  indeed  diiferent,  more  fubtile,  and  better  fuited 
to  their  great  defif^n.  Diredl  proofs  are  lefs  dct^'iv'in^,  and  their 
weaknefs  15  more  eafy  difcoverabls  by  vulgar  capacities.  Que- 
ries conceal  the  weaknefs  of  arguments,  iniangle,  perplex  and 
amufe  lefs  attentive  minds  ,  and  by  them,  the  fubtile  afferters  of 
a  bad  caufe  eafe  themfelves  of  the  trouble  of  proving  th^ir  ill 
grounded  ailertions,  (which  yet,  by  all  rules  of  difputing,  be- 
longs to  them  only)  and  turn  it  over  upon  the  defender.  This 
is  enough  as  to  the  method,  to  let  us  lee  how  fuitable  it  was  to 
their  purpofe. 

The  (y.eries  propofed  by  Blount  are  the  fame  with  Herbert's, 
and  he  adds  others  which  Herbert  wants.  Wherefore  we  (hall 
confider  them  as  propofed  by  Mr.  Blount.  But  whereas  fome 
of  them  are  to  more  advantage  urged  by  Herbert,  we  (ball  offer 
thefe  in  Herbert's  words,  that  we  may  overlook  nothing,  which 
has  the  leafi  appearance  of  force  in  this  caufe. 

Query  I.  "  Whether  there  can  be  an}'^  other  -true  God,  or 
**  whether  any  other  can  juflly  be  called  opiimus  maximus,  the 
**  greatetl  and  beft  God,  and  common  father  of  mankind,  fave 
"  He  who  exercifes  univeiial  providence,  and  looks  fo  far  to 
**  the  good  of  all  men,  as  to  provide  thern  in  common  and  fuffi- 
**  cjent  or  etfeclual  means  for  obtaining  the  Itate  of  eternal  hap- 
**  pinefs  after  this  life,  whereof  he  has  implanted  a  defire  in 
*'  their  minds?  If  the  laity  or  vulgar  vvorlbip  any  other  God, 
**  who  does  not  exeicife  this  univerlal  providence,  are  they  not 
•'  guihy  of  fali'e  worfhip,  or  idolatry?  And  if  any  one  deny  this 
"  common  providence,  is  he  not  guilty  of  treafon  againfl  the 
**  divine  Majefly,'and  of  a  contempt  of  his  goodnefs,  yea,  and 
**  of  atheifm  itfelf?''  Thus  Herbert*.  Blount  propofes  the 
fame  query,  but  more  fhortly,  thus,  **  V/hether  there  be  any 
*'  true  God,  but  he  that  ufeth  univerfal  providence  concerning 
"  the  means  of  coming  to  him  f." 

The  delign  of  this  qu-ry  is  to  prove  the  necelTity  of  a  catho- 
lick religion,  or  a  fufiicient  religion  com:non   to   ail  mankind, 
and  to  fix  the  black  note   of  atheifm  upon  all  who  deny  it.  The 
argument  vrhereby  this  is  evinced  is  rhe  very  fame,  which  we 
■  have  examined  aboi'e,  as  the  Deiils' firft   and    great  argument. 

What 
*  Herbert's  Relig.  Laid,  Appendix,  pa^-.   i,   z. 
i  Bloant  Rel,  Laid,  pa^.  ^o. 


372  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE  chap.  xx. 

What  is  added  ccrscernin^  iinlverfal  Providence,  we  did  con- 
fider  in  our  anfwer  to  Herbert's  firfl  inducement  to  Dcifm.  And 
io  we  might  entirely  pafs  this  query  as  anfvvercd  already,  were 
it  not  for  the  feeming  advantage  given  to  it  by  this  new  drefs, 
wherein  it  appears. 

This  query  has  a  dire6l  tendency  to  drive  men  into   atheifn;, 
and  tempt  them   to  lay  afide  all  worfbip  for  fear  of  falling  info 
idolatry.     It   is  in  itfelf  felf-evident,   that  if  God   has  given  aii 
mankind,  or  to  every  man,  means  fuFncienl  and  etie6iual  to  lead 
them  to  eternal  happinefs,  they  mud   know   of  it,  or,  at  Icali, 
there  muft  be  eafy  accefs  for  them  to  know  it.    With  what  pro- 
priety of  fpeech  can  it  be  faid,  That  the  means  leading  to  eter- 
nal happinefs,   are  given  to   every  man   to   be  by  him  ufed  for 
that  end,  if  they  know  them  not,  or,  at  leaR,   if  the  knowledge 
of  them    be   not  cafily  accciTable  to  all,   who  will  apply    theni- 
lelves  to  an  inquiry  after  them  ?  Nor  is  it  lefs  evident.  That  the 
fuitablenefs,  eificacy  and  fufficiency  of  thefe  means,  for  reach- 
ing this  end,  muft  be  fufficiently  intimated  to  them.    If  it  is  not 
io,  how  can  men  rationally  be  obliged  to  ufe  means  which  they 
do  not  know  to  be  proper  for  compaffing  the  end  ?  With  what 
courage  or  confidence  can  any  rational  man,  with  great  applica- 
tion, over   many  difficulties,   ufe,  and    all  his  life  continue   in 
the  ufe  of  means,  concerning  which   he  has  no  affurance,  that 
they  will  put  him  in  poiTeffion  of  the  end  ?  After  all  his  pains 
he  may  mifs  the  end  be  had  in  view.     How  can  any  reafonable 
foul  pleafe  itfelf  in  fuch  a  courfe?  Can  it  be  reafonably  thought 
worthy  of  the  wifdom   and   goodnefs  of  God,   to  give   man  the 
means  of  attaining  eternal  happinefs,  and  means  fufficient,  and 
yet   leave   men  in  the  dark   as  to  the    l;,,nowledge  of  this,  That 
they  are  deligned  for,  and  fufficient  to  reach  the  end  for  which 
they  were  given  ?  What  can  rationally  induce  men  in  this  cafe, 
to  give   God  the  praife  of  his  goodnefs,  in  affording  them  thefe 
means,  or  to  ufe  them  for  that  end,  for  which  they  were  given, 
if  this  is  hid  from  them?  It  is   then  evident,  That,  if  God  has 
afforded  all  men  fufficlent  means  of  reaching  eternal  happinefs, 
tliey  muil  know  this,  or,  at  lean,  h.jve  eafy  accefs  to  know  thefe 
means,  what  they  are,  and    that    they  are  deligned  to,  proper 
for,  and  will  prove  eitc6iual  to  this  end.      And  confequently,  if 
men  find  not  fuch  means,  after  fearcb,  they  have  evidently  rea- 
fon  to  conclude,  that    God   has    left   them   without   them,    at- 
]ea(^,  that  they  want  them  in  their  prefent  circumflances  ;  fmce 
$fter  all  their  inquires  they  cannot  hnd  them,  nor  cau  they  dif- 

cover 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       373 

cover  that  any  means,  they  know  of,  will  be  efFe6^ual  to  reach 
;his  end. 

This  is  evidently  the  condition  of  man  r.t  prefent,  left  to  the 
mere  light  of  nature.  We  have  proved  juil  now,  That  if  God 
had  given  thefe  fufHcient  ineans,  every  men  inuft,  at  leall,  upor* 
application,  have  had  accefs  to  know  thern,  and  to  know  that 
they  are  fufficient. 

But,  upon  application,  they  find  no  fuch  matter,  and  there- 
fore have  reafon  to  fufpeci,  that  God  has  not  gi'  en  them  thcfe 
means,  if  not  pofnively  to  conclude  that  tliey  are  without  them. 
Herbert  himfelf  glories  that  he  was  the  firft  who  found  out  what 
thefe  means  were.  They  had  efcaped  the  knowledge  and  in- 
duflry  of  the  moft  learned  and  diligent  before  liis  lime.  And 
if  fo,  certainly  the  vulgar  behoved  to  be  at  a  lofs  about  them, 
"vVhen  he  has  found  them,  he  dare  not  be  pcfitive  about  their 
iufficiency  :  '*  Quam  etiam  oh  caufam,  neqiie  eafirfficere  (adfa- 
**  iutem,  viz.  ^t: terna?n J  protenus  dixeri'mi'  i^ysh^*.  Yea,  he 
more  than  infinuates,  that  we  cannot  come  to  be  pofitively  af- 
fured  of  their  fuBiciency,  and  fo  mud  remain  in  the  dark,  iince 
the  determination  of  this  depends  upon  the  fentiments  of  God, 
which  are  known  to  none,  as  he  fays.  Now  when  a  man  (o 
learned,  fo  diligent,  and  fo  evidently  prepofTelTed  with  a  ftrong 
inclination  to  favour  any  means  that  had  a  fliew  of  fufficiency, 
found  fo  much  difficulty  to  hit  upon  any  fuch,  and  did  fo  evi- 
dently hefitate  about  the  fufficiency  of  thefe  he  had  found  ;  mufi: 
not  the  laity,  for  whom,  upon  all  occallons,  he  pretends  fo 
much  concern,  hefitate  more?  Yea,  have  they  not  reafon  evi- 
dently to  conclude,  that  there  are  no  fuch  means  provided  for 
them  ? 

But  Herbert  here  teaches  them,  that  none  is  Xo  be  acknow- 
ledged as  the  true  God,  nor  worshipped  asfuch,who  has  not  pro- 
vided every  man  in  efte^^ual  and  fufficient  means  for  attaining 
eternal  happinefs.  Well  may  the  layman  fay,  **  I  neither 
"  know,  nor  can  I  ever  be  fatisfied,  that  I  have  fuch  means; 
"  yea,  I  have  the  greatefi:  reafon  to  think  that  1  want  them  ;  if 
**  the  good  God  had  given  them,  he  would  not  have  mocked 
*'  me,  by  concealing  them,  and  fo  precluding  me  from  the  ui'c 
**  of  them  ;  he  would  have  pointed  me  to  them,  and  intimated 
**  their  fufficiency,  (b  as  to  make  it  knowable  to  me,  upon  ap- 
**  plication,  without  which  he  could  never  expe(5\   that  1  fhouid 

**   ui'c 

*  Herbert  de  Rel.  Gent.  pag.  217. 


374  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE         chap.xx. 

**  ufe  them  :  I  have  therefore  reafon  to  conclude  myfelf  deftltute 
**  of  them,  and  fo  I  will  worlhip  no  God,  fince  there  is  none 
**  that  has  provided  me  in  the  means  neceffay  to  eternal  happi- 
*'  nefs  :  For  if  I  (hould,  1  would  be  s;uilty  of  worfhipping  one, 
**  who  is  an  Idol,  and  not  the  true  God."  Here  we  fee  where 
this  gentleman's  principles  mud  inevitably  lead  the  poor  man, 
either  to  dlre6t  atheifm,  or  to  worOiip  one,  whom  he  has  reafon 
vehemently  to  fufped  to  be  merely  an  idol,  and  not  the 
true  God, 

Having  thus  difcovered  the  dangerous  tendency  of  this  query, 
I  iliall  now  give  adiretl  anfwer  to  it.  And  to  it  I  fay,  That 
the  God,  who  makes  man,  implants  in  his  child's  mind  a  defire 
of  eternal  felicity,  intimates  to  him  that  he  is  made  for  this  end, 
obliges  him  in  duty  to  purfue  this  end,  under  a  penalty  in 
cafe  he  fail  of  it,  and  yet  denies  or  leaves  his  child  without  the 
means  that  are  abfolutely  neceffiry  for  compading  it,  antece- 
dently to  any  fault  upon  the  child's  part,  will  fcarce  obtain  the 
titles  of  opti7nus  maximus,  great  and  goodf  ov  of  a  common 
Father, 

But  the  God  who  made  man  perfe61:,  in  his  original  ftate,  and 
put  him  in  the  full  poffeffion  of  all  the  means  that  were  necef- 
fary  to  obtain  that  end,  whatever  it  was,  for  which  he  was  made, 
and  which  he  was  in  duty  obliged  to  purfue,  lofes  not  his  inter- 
eR  in,  and  unqueftionable  right  to  the  title  of  optimus  maximus, 
great  and  good  ;  nor  does  he  ccafe  to  be  a  common  Father,  and 
to  a6l  the  part  of  fuch  an  one,  if,  when  his  children  contrary  to 
their  duty,  have  rebelled  againft  him,  by  their  own  fault  drop- 
ped the  knowledge  of  the  end,  for  which  they  were  made,  loft 
the  knowledge  of  the  means,  whereby  it  is  to  be  obtained,  put 
themfelves  out  of  a  capacity  of  ufing  the  means,  or  reaching  the 
end  ;  if,  I  fay,  in  this  cafe,  he  leaves  them  to  fmart  under  the 
effe6\5  of  their  own  fin,  and  treats  them  no  more  as  children, 
but  as  rebels,  who  can  blame  him  ?  Does  he  not  a6t  every  way 
as  it  becomes  one,  who  by  the  bed  of  titles  is  not  merely  a  fa- 
ther, but  the  fovereign  ruler  and  governor  of  all  his  creatures, 
to  whom  of  right  it  belongs  to  render  a  juji  recommence  of  re- 
ward to  every  tranfgrelTor  ? 

Now,  this  is  the  cafe,  as  we  have  already  proven.  .  If  the 
Deids  will  make  their  argument  conclufive,  they  muft  prove 
that  this  is  not  the  cafe  with  man.  And  when  we  fee  this 
done,  we  (hall  then  know  what  to  fay.  Till  then  we  are  not 
much  concerned  with  their  query.     If  they  fay,  How  can  this 

be? 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MQDERN  DEISTS.      375 

be  ?  Can  men  by  the  light  of  nature  know  how  this  came  to 
pafs  ?  I  anfwer,  that  it  is  not  the  queflion,  Kow  it  came  to  be  , 
i b  ?  but,  Whether,  in  fa6t,  it  be  fo  ?  That  it  really  is  thus,  1s 
before  proven.  The  Heathens  have  confcfled  it.  And  though 
we  fhould  never  come  to  be  fatisfied,  how  it  came  about,  yet 
that  it  really  is  fo,  is  enough  to  acquit  God, 

Nor  is  God's  univerfal  Providence  hereby  everted,  he  ftill 
governs  all  mankind  fuitably  to  their  condition.  He  rules  thofe, 
whom  of  his  fovcreign  and  undeferved  grace,  he  has  {ecn 
meet  to  deal  with,  in  order  to  return  to  his  family,  in  a  way 
of  infinite  mercy  and  grace.  He  governs  the  reft  of  the  world,"" 
whom  in  his  fovereign  and  adorable  juftice  and  wifdom,  he 
hath  left  to  lie  under  the  difmal  confequences  of  their  own  fin, 
in  a  way  becoming  their  ftate.  He  provides"  them  in  all  things, 
that  do  neceflarily  belong  to  the  ends,  for  v/hich  they  are  fpa- 
red.  Further,  he  leaves  himfelf  not  without  a  witnefs  as  to  his 
goodnefs,  in  that  he  does  good,  gives  them  rain  from  heaven , 
and  fruitful  feafons,  filling  their  hearts  with  food  and  glad- 
nefs*  Which  is  fufficient  to  (hew  his  fuperabundant  goodnefs, 
that  reaches  even  to  the  unthankful  and  evil,  and  gives  them 
ground  to  conclude.  That  their  want  of  what  is  further  necef- 
fary,  flows  not  from  any  defe6\  of  goodnefs  on  his  part  ;  but 
from  their  own  fins,  of  many  of  which  their  own  confciences 
do  admonifh  them.  If  God  vouchfafes  the  means  of  recovery  to 
any,  they  have  reafon  to  be  thankful  to  fovereign  grace.  If 
God  gives  not,  what  he  may  juftly  refufe,  who  can  in  jufiice 
complain  of  him  ?  They  muft  leave  their  complaint  upon 
themfelves,  and  acquit  God.  And  while  man  is  continued  in 
being,  it  will  remain  his  indifpenfihle  duty  to  v.'orlhip  this  God, 
who  made  him,  fpares  him,  notwithftanding  of  his  finS,  for  a 
time,  punidies  him  lefs  that  his  iniquities  deferve,  and  confers 
many  other  undeferved  favours  on  him.  Nor  is  he  guilty  of 
worfJiipping  an  idol  in  doing  fo. 

Thus  we  have  anfwered  this  query  :  And  I  might  now  pro- 
pofe  to  the  Deifis  a  counter  query,  **  W^hether  they,  who  make 
that  neceffary  to  the  fupport  of  the  univerfal  providence  of  God, 
his  goodnefs,  and  confequently  his  being,  of  which  no  man  can 
be  fure  that  it  really  is,  which  all  men  have  reafon  to  believe 
is  not,  and  which  moft  men,  who  have  made  it  their  bufinef^ 
to  confider  the  cafe  ferioufly,  do  firmly  believe  not  to  be  in 
being,  may  not  reafonably  be  fufpe6ied  to  defign  the  overthrow 
of  thefe  attributes  of  God,  and  confequently  of  his  very  being?" 

Thus 


lyS         AN     INCiUIRY     INTO     THE       chap,  r.^u 

I'liLis  Vaniniis  endeavoured  to  cflablifl:]  atbeirm:  he  afcilbes 
iuch  attributes  to  God,  and  enc'eavoured  to  fix  fuch  notions  of 
his  perfedions,  as  could  not  be  admitted,  without  the  overthrow 
of  other  perfections,  unqueftionably  belonging  to  him,  or  own- 
ed in  any  confiftency  with  realon  and  experience.  For  he  well 
knew,  that  if  once  be  could  bring  men  to  believe  God  to  be 
Iuch  an  one,  if  he  v.-as,  they  would  be  brought  under  a  neceffity 
of  denying,  that  there  was  any  God, 

Query  IL  **  Whether  thefe  means  appear  univerfally  other- 
**  wife,   than  in  our  forefaid  five  catholic  articles*?" 

Thefe  gentlemen  think  they  have,  by  their  firft  query,  fuf- 
ficlently  proved,  that  there  m.uft  be  a  catholick  religion  :  Now 
they  will  prove  theirs  to  be  it.  But  I  have  overthrown  the 
foundation,  and  fo  the  fuper{lru6iure  falls.  I  have  evinced, 
that  there  is  no  fuch  catholick  fulhcient  religion,  by  reafon  and 
experience.  I  hav'e  proved  that  the  pretence  of  its  being  necef- 
fary  to  fupport  the  notion  of  God's  providence  and  good nefs, can 
never  poffibly  perfuade  any  confideiate  man,  to  believe  againft 
his  reafon  and  experience,  againft  the  fight  of  his  eyes,  and  what 
he  feels  within  himfelf,that  he  really  is  in  poffciTion  of  a  fufHcient 
religion, without  revelation  ;  and  confequently  that  the  urging  of 
this  pretence  can  ferve  for  nothing,  if  not  to  make  men  quef- 
tion  the  good  nefs  and  providence  of  God,  and  fo  his  very  being, 
to  the  overthrow  of  all  worihip  and  religion,  I  have  moreover 
made  it  appear,  that  thefe  five  articles  arc  not  catholick,  and 
though  they  were  fo,  yet  are  not  fuflicient. 

Query  III,  **  Whether  any  thing  can  be  added  to  thefe  five 
**  articles  or  principles,  that  may  tend  to  make  a  man  more 
**  honeft,  virtuous,  or  a  better  man  ?"  So  Blount  f*  To  this 
query  Herbert  adje6ls  a  claufe,  viz.  "  Provided  thefe  articles 
**  be  well  explained  in  their  full  latitude  J."  And  is  not  this 
tiie  principal  end  of  religion  ? 

hy  the  foregoing  queries  the  Dcifis'  think  they  have  proved 
the  nccefTuy  of  a  catholick  religion  ;  and  that  their  five  articles 
is  t;-:'s  catholick  religion.  By  this  query  they  pretend  to  prove 
tlisir  religion  fuificient. 

Yo  this  purpofe  thev  tell  us.  That  their  five  articles  are  fuf- 
ilcient  to  make  a  man  virtuous,  honeft  and  good  ;  that  this  is 
the  principal  end  of  religion  ;  and  that  nothing  can  be  added  to 

them, 

*  Blount  Rel.  Laici.  p??.  90.     IJcrb.  Rel.  Laici,  Appendix, 
t  Ibid,  pag.  91.  "'  ^         %  Herb,  Ibid. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  xMODERN  DEISTS.       377 

ibem,  which  can  be  any  way  helpful  as  to  this  end.  If  by 
making  a  man  virtuous,  honeft  and  good,  they  mean  no  more, 
than  the  Heathens  meant  by  thefe  words,  who  took  them  to 
intend  no  more,  but  an  abftinence  from  the  more  grofs  outward 
a6^s  of  vice,  contrary  to  the  light  of  nature,  with  fome  regard 
in  their  dealings  among  men,  to  the  common  and  known  rules  ; 
of  righteoufnefs,  and  ufefulnefs :  If,  I  fay,  this  is  their  mean-: 
ing,  which  I  conceive  it  mufl:  be,  then  I  deny  that  this  is  the  i 
principal  end  of  religion.  No  man  that  underflands  what 
religion  means,  will  fay  it.  The  Heathens  were  influenced  to 
this  by  other  motives,  than  any  thing  of  regard  to  the  authority 
of  the  One  true  God.  Their  Ethicks,  which  enjoined  this 
goodnefs,  virtue  and  honeOy,  prefled  it  by  confiderations  of  a 
quite  different  nature.  Of  God,  his  legiflature,  his  laws,  as 
fuch,  they  took  little  or  no  notice  of,  as  we  obferved  from 
Mr.  Locke  before  ;  and  therefore,  whatever  ufefulnefs  among 
men  there  was  to  be  found  in  their  virtues,  they  had  nothing 
of  religion,  properly  fo  called,  in  them. 

But  if  by  making  a  man  honeft,  virtuous  and  good,  they  mean 
the  making  of  him  inwardly  holy,  and  engaging  him  in  the 
whole  of  his  deportment,  in  both  outward  and  inward  a6^s,  to 
carry  as  becomes  him,  toward  God,  his  neighbour  and  himfelf, 
with  a  due  eye  to  the  glory  of  God  as  his  end,  and  a  juft  re- 
gard to  the  authority  of  God,  as  the  formal  reafon  of  this  per- 
formance of  duly  in  outward  and  inward  a6\s  :  If,  I  fay,  they 
take  their  words  in  this  fenfe,  I  do  own  this  to  be  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal ends  of  religion.  But  then  I  deny  that  ever  any  man,  by 
their  five  articles,  as  taught  by  the  light  of  nature,  or  by  any  o- 
ther  of  the  like  kind,  known  only  by  the  mere  light  of  nature, 
was  in  this  fenfe,  fmce  the  entrance  of  fin,  made  virtuous  and 
good.  Nay,  the  moral  Heathens  were  not  led  to  that  Ibadow 
of  virtue  and  goodnefs,  which  they  had  in  the  fenfe  before- 
mentioned,  from  any  regard  to  thefe  five  articles,  as  they  are 
articles  of  religion  ;  that  is,  as  they  are  principles  diretStive  as 
to  the  duty,  which  man  owes  to  the  One  only  True  and  Su- 
preme Being. 

And  taking  virtue,  goodnefs,  and  honefty  in  this  laft;  fenfe, 
which  is  that  alone  wherein  we  are  concerned,  1  have  above 
proven  the  light  of  nature,  and  particularly  thefe  five  articles, 
as  known  by  it,  utterly  infufficient  to  make  any  man  virtuous, 
boneft  and  good.  And  I  have  demonflrated  not  om,  but  many 
things  befide  what  is  contained  in   thefe  five  articles,  however 

A  a  a  explained 


378  AN   INQ_UIRY    INTO    THE  chap.  xx. 

explained  to  the   utmofl   advantage  that  can  be  done  by  mere 
unafTifted  reaibn,  to  be  ahfoiiUely  neceffary  io  the  ends  of  religion. 
Nor  will   what  Herbert  has  adje^:^ted   mend  the   matter,  viz. 
That   his  articles  mujl  be  zcell  explained  in  their  full  latitude, 
Thele  v>rords,  if  they  have   any   fenfe,  it  is  ti)is,  *^  It  is  not  e- 
nough  to  believe  and  receive  our  articles,  as  in  general  propofed, 
this   will  make  no  man  good.      He  muft  not  only,  for  inliance, 
agree  to  it,  that  theie  is  one  Supreme  God,  and  that  he  is  to  be 
worihipped  by  a  virtuous  life,  but  he  muft  be  acquainted   with 
all  the  attributes  of  this  God,  neceiTary  to  be  known,  in  order 
to  the  direction  of  his  pradice,  and   he  mufi  underftand  and  be 
fixed  as  to  the  nature,  meafure  and  all  other  necefTary  concerns 
of  thefe  virtues  that  belong  to  his  duty."     This  is  undeniably 
the  meaning  of  this   exprelTion,  and  this  inevitably  overthrov/s 
all  tliat  our  author  has  been  building.     Were  thefe  five  articles, 
in  this   latitude,  univerfaily    agreed   to?  Our  author  knew  the^ 
contrary.     If  any  man  (hould  afifert  it,  it  were  enough  to  make 
him  be  hiffed  off  the   ftage,  as  either  brutifhly  ignorant  of  the 
world,  or  impudentiy  difingenuous.     Well  then,  our  catholick 
religion  is  loll.     Again,  fmce  the  explications  belong  as  much 
to  our  author's  religion  as  the    articles  themfelves,  (for  without 
them  he  confeffes  the  articles  not  fufficient)  how  ihall  the  poor 
layman  ever  be  fatisfied  about  them  ?  Have  there  not  been  as 
many,  and  as  intricate  dlfputes  about  them,  as  about  the  articles 
of  revealed   religion  r'   Where  is   now  the   boafled   agreement? 
"Where  is  the  uncontroverted  religion?  What  attribute  of  God 
has   not   been  queftipned,  difputed  and  denied  ?  Have  not  his 
creation  of  ail  thing-i,  his  Providence,  6:c.  which  of  all  others 
have  the  moft  remarkable  influence  upon  practice,  by  many  been 
denied  ?  Have   not  horrid  notions   of  them   been  advanced    by 
Ibnie?  What   will    now  become  of  men   of  fqueamilh  ftomachs, 
that  car.  admit  of  no  religion,  but  one  that  is  fmooth,  and  has  no 
rugged  coniroverfies   in  it?  Why,   poor  gentlemen,  they  mufl: 
part  with  our  author's  relioion,  and  fo  be,  what  they  were  be- 
foie,  men  of  no  religion.  Upon  the  whole,  we  fee  that  this  que- 
ry, dci^.^wtd  to  piove  the  DeifW  religion Jiifficient,  has  proven 
it  a  chimera. 

Q^uery  IV,  *'  Vv'^hether  anv  things  that  are  added  to  tljefe  five 
**  principles  from  the  doctrine  of  faith,  be  not  uncertain  in 
*'   their  original  ?"  So  Blount  *.     Herbert  to  this  adds,  "  That 

though 
*  EloiintRcl.  Laid,  pao;.  g,i. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       379 

^*  though  God  be  (rue,  yet  the  laity  can  never  be  certain  about 
**  revelation  :  For,  (fays  lie)  how  do  ye  know  that  God  fpake 
"  thefe  words  to  the  propliets  ?  How  do  you  know  that  they 
'*  faithfully  repeated  or  wrole  what  God  fpoke  to  them,  and  no 
**  more?  How  do  ye  know  that  transcribers  have  performed 
**  their  part  faithfully?  How  do  ye  know,  that  that  particular 
*'  revelation  made  to  a  particular  prieft,  prophet  or  lawgiver, 
*'  concerns  not  only  ail  other  priefts  and  lawgivers,  but  alio  the 
**  laity?  Efpecially,  how  ihall  ye  know  this,  if  the  matter  of 
**  revelation  require  you  to  recede  from  reafon  ?  *"  And  here 
we  have  a  proof  of  the  fourth  refieGtion,  of  liis  unfair  treatment 
of  the  Chriftian  revelation,  which  we  made  above.  Chap.  13. 
For  either  he  inHnuates,  that  the  fcriptures  teach  things  contra- 
ry to  reafon  ;  and  if  fo,  where  was  our  author's  ingenuity  when 
he  called  it  optima  religioy  and  upon  other  occafions  pretended 
fo  much  refpeci  to  it?  Does  not  this  juflify  our  charge  of  difm- 
genuity  againft  him,  in  the  firji  reflexion  we  have  made,  in 
the  place  now  referred  to?  If  he  owns,  that  this  is  not  the  fault 
of  the  Chriftian  religion,  but  of  other  pretended  revelations  ; 
then  he  juftifies  out  fourth  refletliorii  wherein  we  charge  him 
with  jumbling  revel?,tions,  true  and  falfe  together,  that  have, 
at  leaft,  feemingly  fair  pretences,  and  thefe  that  have  none  ;  and 
deceitfully  charges  upon  all  in  cumulo,  the  faults  peculiar  to  the 
worfl:.  If  this  is  not  enough  to  perfuade  you  to  the  truth  of  his 
proteftation  above-mentioned,  viz*  that  he  defigned  no  hurt 
to  the  Chriltian  religion,  he  lias  an  obfervation,  with  which  he 
concludes  this  query,  that  will  beat  the  perfuafion  of  it  into 
your  brains,  or  elfe  of  fomewhat  befide  ;  and  it  is  this,  in  his 
own  words,  "  I  think  it  worthy  of  the  layman's  obfervation, 
>*  that  there  is  this  difference  betwixt  the  pretended  revelations 
offered  to  us,  by  the  lawgivers,  and  thofe  offered  to  us  by 
pUcfis,  interpreters  of  the  oracles  God,  (under  which  no- 
tion he  takes  in  all  prophets)  whether  they  gave  their  re- 
velations or  refponfes  for  hire,  or  merely  to  fet  off  their  own 
conceits  (five  venales  five  nugivendiij  that  the  revelations, 
which  the  lawgivers  pretended  they  had  from  heaven,  and 
promulgated  as  luch,  did  ufually  make  the  people  more  juft 
and  fociable,  or  agree  better  together  ;  whereas  the  pretend- 
ed revelations  of  the  priefis  and  prophets,  of  whatever  fort, 
V   (or  in  his  own  words,  Oracuiorum  inter pr^Uibus  five  vetinhhui 

"  JivC: 

t  Herb,  Rel.  Laici,  Appendix,  pag.  3» 


o3o  AN    INQUIRY    INTO   THE  chap,  xx, 


vJ 


**  five  nugivendis )  did  ufuaiiy  make  the  people  more  unjuft  or 
**  impious,  and  did  divide  them  among  theaifelves  *." 

Here  is  a  rare  obfervation,  vvonh  gold  to  the  layman.  He 
may,  with  more  fafety,  receive  and  ule  the  laws  v/hich  Lycur- 
gus,  Solon,  and  the  other  Heathen  lawgivers  pretended  they 
had  from  heaven  ;  and  I  would  add  Moles  and  his  writings,  but 
that  I  fear  our  author  has  caR  hirn,  becaufe  he  fet  up  for  an  in- 
terpreter of  God's  mind,  and,  upon  fome  extraordinary  ©cca- 
fions,  afted  the  part  of  a  priell :  Our  author,  1  fay,  would  per- 
fuade  him,  that  he  may,  with  more  advantage,,  read  thele  wri- 
ting', than  thofe  of  the  prophets  and  apoflles,  or  any  other  of 
the  facred  writers,  who  were  not  lawgivers.  It  is  true,  both 
are  to  be  looked  upon  but  as  pretended  revelations,  and  fo  in 
etFect  cheats :  but  the  lawgivers  beguiled  the  people  to  their 
sdvantyge  ;  whereas  thefe  rogues  of  priefis,  and  others  who 
joined  with  thcrn,  offered  cheats  that  were  hurtful  to  juftice  a- 
mong  men,  and  the  peace  of  fcciety. 

If  any  fay,  I  qm  wrefting  our  author's  vvords,  and  that  cer- 
tainly his  comparifon  refpe6ts  only  the  Heathen  lawgivers,  and 
Keathcn  priefts  ;  I  anfwer,  \x  this  is  the  meaning,  it  is  alto- 
gether impertinent  to  the  defign  of  the  query,  which  avowedly 
aims  at  this,  **  That  laymen,  living  among  us,  (for  i  do  not 
believe  our  author  defigned  to  fend  his  book  to  the  Pagans) 
can  never  be  fatisficd  as  to  the  truth  of  any  particular  revela- 
tionj"  and  all  his  fubordinate  queries  do  dire£lly  thruft  at  the 
fcriptures  ,•  and  then  he  clofes  with  this  obfervation,  as  of  the 
greateft  moment  to  the  defign  of  the  query.  And  therefore  I  can- 
not own,  tliat  I  have  done  any  injury  to  our  author,  in  the  inter- 
pretation 1  have  given  of  it;  but  i  have  fpoke  his  meaning  more 
plainly,  than  he  thought  convenient  to  do.  The  next  query 
is  to  the  fame  purpofe,  and  therefore  v/e  (hall  propofe  it,  and 
anfwer  both.  0, 

Query  V.  "  Suppofing  the  originals  true,  whether  yet  they 
*'  be  not  uncertain  in  their  explications  ;  **  fo  that  unlefs  a 
**  man  read  all  authors,  fpeak  with  all  learned  men,  and 
'*  know  all  languages,  it  be  not  impoirible  to  come  to  a  clear 
**  folution  of  all  doubts?"  Thus  Blount  f.  Herbert,  in  his 
fifth  query,  fpeaks  to  the  fame  purpofe,  he  makes  a  hue;e  out- 
cry about  the  fchifms  and  fedis  that  are  among  us,  and  tells  us 

plainly 

*   Herb.  Rcl.  Laici,  Appendix,  pag.  3. 
f  Blount   Rsl,  Laici,  ubi  fupra,  pa^,  91. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       381 

plainly,  that  if  we  will  adhere  ftifHy  to  revelation,  we  muft  of 
nece(li?y  get  an  injalithle  judge^  to  whofe  deci(ions  we  muil 
iubinit  in  all  things.  He  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  fcrip- 
tures  will  not  decide  the  eontroverfy  ;  and  impertinently  e- 
«ough  labours  to  difprove  what  none  ever  aOerted,  That  mira- 
cles wrought  by  the  Vvritcrs  will  not  decide  the  differences  a- 
bout  the  nneaning  of  their  writings.  For  it  is  evident  this 
query  only  refpecb  tlie  meaning  of  the  revelation,  as  the  former 
did  its  OTZginal.  Howe/er,  1  know  who  will  thank  our  author 
for  alTerting  the  neccfruy  of  a  living  infallible  judge.  If  any 
think  I  have  wronged  ci::r  author  as  to  this,  let  them  infpe£l  his 
book,  and  they  will  find  I  have  done  him  juPvice.  But  for  the 
fatisfatiion  of  thofe  who  have  it  not,  I  (hall  fubjoin  his  own 
exprefs  words  ;  he  informs  the  layman,  that  he  can  never  be 
fatished  about  the  meaning  of  this  revelation,  about  which  there 
are  fo  many  controverfies,  unlefs  either  he  can  **  Linguas 
**  cuntlas  edifcere,  fcriptores  cunBos  celebriores  perleoerey  doc- 
**  tior&s  ttiam,  qui  non  fcripfirunty  conjulere;  aut  aliquis  fal- 
**  tcm  controverfiarwn  illarum  ex  coiifenju  communi  J'mnmus 
**  conflitueretur  judex  *•"  And  then  he  goes  on  to  prove, 
that  there  is  no  other  poffible  way  of  deciding  thefe  differences, 
ahd  coming  to  the  meaning  of  revelation,  but  in  thefe  two 
ways  pointed  at  in  the  v/ords  now  quoted.  The  firft  is  ridicu- 
lous, and  therefore  we  muft  be  Deifts  or  Papifts. 

The  defign  of  thefe  queries  is  obvious.  They  were  afraid 
that  their  arguments  might  prove  weak,  which  they  had  ad- 
vanced for  the  fufficiency  of  their  catholick  religion  ;  and  now 
in  efFect,  they  tell  the  laity,  that  if  they  have  a  mind  to  have  a 
religion  at  all,  they  muft  clofe  with  this  which  the  Deifts  pre- 
fent  them.  And  though  we  cannot  fatisfy  you,  may  the  Deifts 
fay,  in  all  points,  about  our  catholick  religion,  yet  you  muft 
reft  fatisfied  with  it :  for  you  can  never  be  fure  about  revela- 
tion, either  as  to  its  original  or  meaning.  Men  brought  to  fuch 
a  ftrait,  fince  they  cannot  have  fuch  a  religion  as  they  would 
Willi,  muft  take  fuch  as  they  can  get. 

Thefe  queries  dire6lly  attack  revelation  ,*  and  fo  belong  not 
to  our   fubjeft.     The   learned   defenders  of  revealed  religion 

have 

*  "  Learn  all  languages,  read  over  all  the  moft  celebrated  writers, 
'<  confult  the  moil  learned  men,  v/ho  have  not  written,  or  at  leaft  fome 
"  fupreme  judge  of  all  controverfies  muit  be  appointed  by  common 
"  confent." 


3S2  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE  chap.  xx. 

have  confidered  thofe  trifles,  and  repelled  the  force  of  them, 
I  fiiall  oniv  conf-dcr  them,  in  fo  far  as  they  belong  to  our  fub- 
]ci\y  and  offer  the  few  following  animadverfions  upon  tliem. 

I.  1  fay,  if  the  layman  miift,  for  the  fake  of  thofe  diiriculties, 
quit  revealed  religion,  he  mull  part  with  the  DcilU'  catholick 
religion  upon  the  fame;  account.  Herbert  has  told  us,  and  it 
vers  indeed  ridiculous  to  fay  the  contrary,  that  this  catholick 
trtUgion  is  comprehenfive  not  only  of  their  five  articles,  but  their 
cxpiicatioijs.  Now, are  there  not  as  many,  and  no  lefs  intricate 
debates  about  this  religion,  as  about  that  which  is  revealed  ? 
Is  not  its  fufficicncy  difputed?  Muft  not  the  layman  read  all 
books,  converfe  with  all  learned  men,  &c.  before  he  can  reft 
fatisfted  in  it  ?  Are  there  not  intricate  and  perplexed  difputes  a- 
bout  the  authority,  extent,  ufe,  rpatter,  and  manner  of  the  pro- 
mulgation of  the  law  of  niture  ?  Where  ihall  the  layman  find 
the  notices  ihat  belong  to  this  religion  ?  Shall  he  turn  inward, 
and  find  them  infcribed  upon  his  own  mind  ?  So  our  author  ad- 
vifes.  But  learned  men  fay,  and  pretend  to  prove  the  con- 
trary. And  if  mod  men  look  into  their  own  minds,  they  will 
either  fay  with  the  latter  that  they  are  not  there  ;  or  complain  that 
they  are  become  fo  dim  that  they  cannot  read  them  unlefs  fome 
charitable  Deifl  will  afford  them  his  fpe6iacles.  But  when  they 
have  got  them,  what  fhall  they  do  next  for  the  explications?  Are, 
the  explications  written  there  too?  The  Deifts  dare  not  fay  it. 
But  thefe  likewife  are  neceffary  fay  the  Deifls,  as  we  have  heard 
from  BJount  and  Herbert  before.  Shall  the  laity  confult  the 
Poftors  about  their  meaning?  But  do  not  Do6\ors  differ?  Do 
not  the  Magi,  and  not  a  few  learned  Greeks,  as  Zeno  an4 
Cryfippus,  &c.  teach  Sodomy  to  be  lawful  ?  Was  it  not 
the   judgment  of  others,  that  a  wife  man   ought  J^a''  /tAi\|.5/v  te 

KXi  (/.oi^-^stVy   K(x.i  ispiJvKri'jiiv   ev   KXipM^  fjL'nOsv  yxp  raTwv  Ovcrsi  a.ia")(jpov  aivxi  } 

that  is,  To  fleal,  and  commit  adultry  and facrilegc  upon  occa-fions, 
for  none  of  thefe  things  are  by  nature  evil-  So  Theodorus,  as  He- 
fychius  Illuftrius  reports  in  his  life  *.  Does  not  Arifiippus  and 
Carneades.  with  many  others,  overthrow  the  whole  law  of  nature, 
telling  us,  that  nothing  is  naturally  jufi:  or  unjuH:,  good  or  evil, 
but  by  virtue  of  fome  arbitrary  law  ?  Has  not  the  fame  opinion 
been  revived,  broached  and  inculcated  by  Hobbs  and  others  a- 
mong  ourfelves?    Has  not   Plato   long   fince  obferved    in   his 

Phedoup 

*  Sec  Dr.  Owen  on  the  Sabbath,  Excrcit.  3.  §.13. 


Pl^vINeiPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      3S3 

Phedortj  "  That  if  any  one  name  either  filver  or  iron,  prefent- 
'*  ly  all  men  agree  what  it  is  that  is  intended  ;  but  if  they 
**  fpeak  of  that  which  is  juft  or  good,  prefently  we  are  at  vari- 
**  ance  with  others,  and  among  ourfelves."  In  a  word,  he 
that  will  cad  at  revelation,  for  its  controverfies,  is  a  fool  to  go 
over  to  natural  religion,  in  expectation  to  be  free  of  contioverfy. 
Thus  we  are  at  leaft  upon  a  level  with  the  Deifts. 

2.  If  the  layman,  in  defiance  of  the  Deifts'  queries,  may 
reach  a  fatisfying  affurance  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  fcrip- 
tures,  where  is  then  the  necf:ffity  for  his  quitting  revelation  ?  It 
will  quite  evanifh.  This,  I  fay,  he  may  have,  without  trou- 
bling his  head  about  impertinent  queries  of  this  fort,  if  he  duly 
attend  to  that  one,  plain  and  rational  dire6iion  given  by  cur 
X^ORD,  John  vii.  17.  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  Jliall 
know  of  the,  dodrinc,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  fpeak 
of  rnyfelf. 

The  fcrlptures  containing  a  full  account  of  all  the  concerns 
of  the  Chriftian  religion,  are  exhibited  to  him,  and  put  in  his 
hand  by  the  church  as  a  revelation  from  God,  wherein  all  his 
concerns  for  eternity  are  wrapped  up.  I  do  not  plead,  that 
the  teftimony  of  the  church  is  a  fufficient  ground  for  bottoming 
his  faith.  But  this  I  fay,  that  the  teflimony  of  the  church  is  a 
fufficient  ground  for  any  man  to  judge  and  conclude  firmly, 
that  its  pretcnfions  are  not  contemptible,  and  that  it  deferves 
the  moft  ferious  confideration  imaginable.  But  when  1  fpeak 
of  the  church,  to  whofe  tellimony  this  regard  is  to  be  paid,  we 
fet  afide,  as  of  no  confideration,  a  multitude  of  perfons,  whe- 
ther of  the  clergy  or  laity,  who  do,  in  their  praCtice  vifibly 
contradict  the  confelTed  rules  of  their  religion.  Such  perfons 
are  fcarce  to  be  reckoned  of  any  religion,  and  their  terrinjoriV 
js  of  no  confideration,  either  for  or  againft  religion.  Nor  do 
we  refirid  the  notion  of  the  church  to  the  reprelentatives  of  it, 
much  lefs  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  monopolize  this  narr:e. 
But  1  take  it  for  that  body  of  men,  of  whatever  ftation  or  qual- 
ity, who  have  received,  and  do  a6f  anfwerably  to  the  Chrifiian 
religion  they  profefs,  in  fome  good  meafure  at  leafl.  Now  1 
fay,  the  teftimony  of  this  church,  or  body  men,  deferves  great 
regard  in  this  matter.  If  we  confider  them,  There  are  among 
them  perfons  of  untainted  reputation,  enemies  themfelves  be- 
ing judges.  Not  a  few  of  them  are  of  unqueftionable  judgmenf.. 
deep  diferning,  folid  learning,  and  firidl  inquiries  after  truth. 
They  are  not  a  fe^^  but  many.  Nor  are  they  confined  to  one 
*.  ■  nation 


384  AN   IInQ^UIRV    into    THE         ghap.xx. 

tiation    or  age,  but   fuch    they  have  been  in  all  ages,  in  lali 
nations,  where    Chrinianity  has   obtained   free   arcefs.      Many 
ot  them  are  perfons,    whom   envy  itfelf  cannot  allege   biaO'ed, 
by   external  gain  of  one  fort  or  of  another.  They  are  perfons 
of  ditFerent,  nay    crofs   civil  interefts,  and    of   different  out- 
ward conditions.     Such  are   the   perfons  who  give  this   tefti- 
n;ony.      Again,    if   we  confider    their   teflimony.  They  bear 
witnefs  to  the  Chriftian   religion  in   all   its  concerns,  its  truth, 
iufficiencv,  ufefulnefs    to  all  the    ends    of    religion,  with    re- 
ipeSt  to  time  or  eternity,  and  its   efficacy  for  beginning,   car- 
rying on,  maintaining,    reviving   and    confummating  fuch   as 
fmcerely   receive   it,  in  godlinefs  towards  God,  righteoufnefs 
towards  men,  fobriety  ^vith  refpe6l  to  ourfelves ;  and  that  both 
as  to  inward  principles  and  outward  acls.     Further,  if  we  con- 
fider  in  what  way  they  give  in  their  teflimony,  the   weight  of 
it   will  appear.     They   bear    witnefs   to   all  this,  not  only  by 
their  words,  but  by  their  deeds,  living    in  a  conformity    to  it, 
parting  with  all  that  is  deareft  to  them  for  it,  cheerfully  under^ 
going  the    greateft  hardOiips,  patiently   bearing   the  moft  cruel 
torments,  to  the  lofs  of  life  itfelf ;   and  this  they  do  neither  upon 
mere  conftraint,  nor  on  the  other  hand,  from  a  ralh  and  inad- 
vertent negledl  of  a  due  regard  to  the  unqueftionable  advantages 
of  peace,  health,  iife?  and  the  other  good  things  they  part  with  ; 
but  they  venture  upon  doing  and  fuffering  freely  and  of  choice, 
upon  a  fober,  rational  confideration  of  the  advantage  of  cleav- 
ing to  their   religion,  and    of  its   being  fuch,  as   will  do  more 
than  compenfate  any  lofs  they  can  fuiiain  for  it.     Again,  they 
bear  witnefs  to  the  concerns  of  this  religion,  as  to  a  thing  that 
tl'.ev  h.ave  not  received  upon  bare  hear-fay,  but  upon  narrow 
fcriitiny,  as  that  whereof  they  have  the  experience.     They  do 
not  only  give  this  teftimony,  when  it  is  new    to  them,  but  af- 
ter long  trial,  when  they  are  moll;   fedate    and  compofed,  and 
when  they  can  expedft  nothing  of  advantage  by  it,   and  when 
they  muft  lay  their  account  with  contempt,  oppofition  and  lofs. 
They  give  this  teflimony  in   whatever  place  they  are,  where  it 
is  honoured,  or  where  it   is   oppofed.      They   give  it  with   the 
fircatefi  concern,  and  recommend  this  religion  to  thofe  whom 
they  would  leaR:  deceive,  even  vi'ith   th6ir  dying  breath,  when 
they  dare  not  diG'emble,  and  that  after  a  long  trial,  in  the  courfe 
cf  their  lives,  in  the  greatel}  variety  of  outward  conditions,  fuf- 
ficient  to  have  difcovered  the  weaknefs  of  their  religion,  if  it 
had  any.    They  have  made  choice  of  this  religion,  and  adhered 

to 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.      3S5 

to  it,  under  the  greateft  outward  difau vantages,  who  were  not 
prspoffefled  in  its  favour  by  education,  but  prejudged  againlt 
it  ;  and  they  have  embraced  it,  where  they  had  a  free  choice 
to  accept  or  reject  it,  and  advantages  to  tempt  them  to  a  refufa!. 
They  do  not  require  an  implicit  belief  as  Mahometans  do,  but 
proi'oke  to  experience  and  trial.  Now  I  dare  boldly  fay,  that 
fhis  teflimony  is  a  better,  more  plain, obvious, and  every  way  more 
juftitiable  ground  of  rational  ailent  to  the  divine  authority,  truth, 
efficacy,  and  fufficiency  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  than  can  be 
given  for  the  like  aflfent,  to  any  other  particular  religion  what- 
ibever.  Nay,  there  is  more  in  this  one  teftimony,  as  it  is,  or 
at  leall:  may  be  qualified  with  other  circumftances,  difcernible 
even  by  the  moft  ordinary  layman,  here  for  brevity's  fake  omit*- 
ted,  (the  urging  of  this  in  its  full  firength,  not  being  my  pre- 
fent  defign)  than  can  be  offered  for  all  the  other  religions  in  the 
world,  natural,  or  pretending  to  revelation,  were  all  that  can 
be  faid  for  them  altogether  put  in  one  argument.  Any  reafon- 
able  man  cannot  but  think  his  eternal  concerns  fafer  in  follow- 
ing this  fociety,  than  any  other  whatfoever  :  There  is  not  fuch 
another  company  elfewhere  to  be  met  with,  as  might  be  dc- 
monftrated  to  the  convi6\ion  of  the  ftiffeft  oppofer.  But  this  J 
plead  not  at  prefent,  I  fay  not,  that  he  fhould  build  his  per- 
fualion  of  ChriQianity  upon  this  teftimony.  All  that  I  make  of 
it  is  this,  That  he  has  reafon  to  confider  the  fcriptures,  as  thus 
attefied,  as  a  book  that  has,  at  leaft,  very  plaufible  preterices  to 
divinity,  a  book  that  deferves  ferious  perulal,  a  book  that  can- 
not poffibly  have  any  obvious  and  unqueftionable  arguments  of 
impofture,  and  confeqaently,  that  it  deferves  to  be  read  through, 
and  fully  heard  before  it  is  caft ;  and  that  though  there  occur  in 
it  fomc  things  that  he  cannot  prefently  underftand,  or  whofe  ufc 
and  value  he  cannot  take  up,  he  ought  not  therefore  to  be  pre- 
judged againfi:  the  divine  authority  of  the  book  upon  the  account 
of  them,  till,  at  leaft,  it  is  heard  to  an  end.  For,  who  knows 
not,  that  things  which  appear  incredible,  unreafonable,  yea 
ridiculous,  before  their  caufes,  order  and  defign  are  underftood, 
may,  upon  acquaintance  with  thefe,  appear  convincingly  cre- 
dible, uieful,  and  every  way  reafonable  ?  This  is  ail  1  claim  of 
the  layman  at  prefent,  and  he  deferves  not  the  name  of  a  re?.- 
fonable  man  who  will  deny  it  upon  fuch  a  ground.  And  if  the 
Deifts  had  confidered  this,  we  had  not  been  troubled  with  the 
many  chiidirn  and  trifling  prejudices,  wherewith  their  Oracics  of 
Reafon  and  otiier  books  are  fluffed.     Nor  could  they  have  been 

B  b  b  (liver ted 


38^  AN    INQUIRY    INTO    THE         chap.  xm. 

diverted  from  the  ierlcus  connderation  of  the  fcriptures,  by  fuch 
pitiful  exceptions. 

Well,  the  Icriptures  being  put  into  the  layman's  hand,  thus 
attefted,  he  fets  himfelf  to  the  perufal  of  them,  and  fiich  a  pe- 
rufal  as  the  cafe  requires  ;  looking  to  God  for  dire6tion,  he  tries 
the  means  appointed  by  them,  for  fatisfa6lion  as  to  iheir  divinity. 
While  he  Is  feeking  light  from  God,  in  fuch  a  matter,  he  dare 
not  expe6i  it,  if  he  continue  in  the  negle6l  of  known  duty,  or 
the  commitTion  of  kiicv/n  fin,  and  therefore  he  fiudies  to  avoid 
them.  He  is  refoived  to  follow  truth,  as  it  is  difcovered,  and 
to  fubfcribe  to  the  fcripture  pretenfions,  if  they  give  fufficient 
evidence  of  themfeives.  Nothing  is  here  refoived,  but  what  is 
reafonable  beyond  exception.  In  purfuance  of  this  jufl  re- 
Iblution,  he  reads  them,  and  upon  his  perufal,  v/hat  pafTages 
he  cannot  underfiand,  or  reach  the  reafon  of,  he  paffes  at  pre- 
fent  and  goes  on,  till  he  fee  further  what  may  be  the  intention 
of  them.  And  he  finds  in  plain  and  convincing  expreilions, 
his  own  cafe,  and  the  cafe  of  all  men  by  nature,  clearly 
difcovered,  and  urged  upon  him  by  this  book  ;  the  words 
pierce  his  foul,  dive  into  his  confcience,  and  make  manifeft 
'i\^Q  fecrets  of  his  heart,  (known  to  none  but  God)  manifeft  his 
fins,  in  their  nature  and  tendency,  add  all  their  concern- 
ments. His  confcience  tells  him,  all  this  is  true  to  a  tiile,- 
though  he  did  not  know  it  before,  and  none  other  fave  the 
heart-fearching  God,  could  know  v/hat  was  tranfa61ed  within 
h\s  heart,  though  overlooked  by  himfelf.  The  difcovery  not 
only  carries  with  it  an  evidence  of  truth,  which  his  confcience 
lubfcribes  to  ;  bqt  the  words  wherein  it  is  expreffed,  bear  in 
themfeives  upon  his  foul  with  a  light,  authority  and  majefty  for- 
merly unknov/n,  evidencing  their  meaning  and  truth,  and  fil- 
ling the  foul  with  unufual  and  awful  imprefhons  of  the  majefly 
and  authority  of  the  fpeaker.  Thus  being  convinced  and  judged, 
and  the  Jecrets  of  his  heart  made  manifcjlj  he  is  forced  to  faU 
down  and  acknoxvledge,  that  God  is  in  the  word  of  a  truth.  And 
he  is  ready  to  fay,  Come  fee  a  book  tliat  told  7ne  all  that  ever  I  did 
in  my  life,  is  not  this  the  book  of  God  ?  Thus  he  flands  trcm- 
biing  under  the  fenfe  of  the  w^ralh  of  God,  due  to  him  for  his 
iins.  He  reads  on,  and  iinds  in  the  fame  book  a  difcovery  of 
reluf,  propofed  frequently  in  plain  palfnges.  He  is  urged  to  an 
acceptance  of  it.  The  difcovery  carries  along  with  it  a  full  evi- 
dence Qi  \.k\Q  fuitahlenefs,  excellency ,  and  advantage  of  the  reme- 
dy :  And  by  a  gufl  of  its  goodnefsi  or  inward  {t.x\it^  he  is  drawn 

to 


PRINCIPLES  OF  TxHE  MODERN  DEISTS.       387 

to  an  approbation.  Upon  this  approbation  the  promifed  effecls 
follow.  His  fears  are  difTipaled,  his  hopes  revived,  his  ibul  is 
made  acquainted  with  formerly  unknown  aqd  God>becoming 
expreffions  of  the  nature  and  excellencies  of  God,  and  going 
iViii  on  every  day,  repeated  experience  occur  of  the  jullnefs  of 
the  difcoveries  the  word  makes  of  himfelf,  the  authority  of  its 
commands,  faithfulnefs  of  its  promifes,  the  awfulnefs  of  its 
threatnings,  none  of  which  fall  to  the  ground.  He,  In  a 
word,  has  repeated  experience  cf  the  unparalleled  efficacy  of 
the  whole,  for  the  cure  of  his  darknefs,  his  corruption,  &c, 
which  defpifed  other  applications;  and  towards  his  advance- 
ment to  a  fincere  and  confcientious  regard  to  ail  his  duties, 
outward  and  inward,  toward  God  and  man. 

Let  us  now  but  fuppofe  this  to  be  the  cafe  with  thic  man  upon 
his  perufal  of  the  fcriptures,  though  with  refpe(5t  to  innumera- 
ble fouls,  it  is  more  than  a  bare  i'uppofition :  upon  this  fuppo- 
lition,  I  fay,  i.  The  man  has  the  higheft  lecurity  he  can  de- 
fire,  that  tliis  book  is,  as  to  its  Tubftance,  the  very  word  of 
Gpd,  as  certainly  as  if  it  were  fpoken  to  him  immediately  by 
a  voice  from  heaven.  This  cannot  well  be  denied  by  any  that 
underftands  this  fuppofition.  2.  I  fay,  the  man  thus  convinced 
may  laugh  at  all  Herbert's  queries  as  Impertinent.  He  finds 
God  fpeaking  by  the  word,  and  owning  it  for  his.  He  needs 
not  therefore  trouble  himfelf  who  wrote  it,  or  whether  they 
were  honefi  men  who  tranlcrlbed  it,  or  whetl|er  they  performed 
their  part,  whether  it  was  defigned  for  him  ;^and  the  like  may- 
be laid  of  all  his  other  queries.  He  will  find  no  occafion  for 
that  dinin61ion  htX^ixX  traditional  or  original  revelation ^  menti- 
oned by  Herbert,'and  infixed  upon  by  Mr.  Locke,*  on  what  de- 
lign  I  leave  others  to  judge.  In  this  cafe,  as  to  the  fubftance, 
it  is  all  one  to  him,  as  if  it  had  not  corns  through  another  hand, 
nor  has  he  reafon  to  furpe61-,  that  God  v,'culd  permit  to  creep 
into,  or  Hand  in  a  book,  whIcJi  for  the  (vh^Xd^v.cQ ^  he  Oill  owns 
and  evinces  to  be  from  him,  any  thing  of  a  coarfer  alloy,  at 
leaft  any  fuch  corruption  as  might  make  it  unworthy  of  hirn  to 
own  it,  or  unfafe  to  ufe  it  to  the  defign  it  xvas  given  for  :  Yea, 
he  has  the  ftrongeft  fecurity  that  the  perfeciions  and  providence 
of  God  can  afford,  to  reft  fully  allured  of  the  contrary.  He  has 
no  reafon  to  be  tumbled  at  paffages  that  he  cannot  und^rOand, 
or  fuch  as  by  others  are  reckoned  ridiculous,  but  rallier  to  fav. 

witji 

*  L^jcke's  E\Bv  on  Hum»  UnderRand.  Book  4.  Cap^  18.  i  6,  7,  8\ 


388  AN    INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE  chap.  xx. 

with  Socrates,  in  another  cafe,  "  What  I  underftand  I  admire, 
**  and  am  fully  convirrced  to  be  every  v;ay  worthy  of  its  author; 
**  and  therefore  I  conclude  what  I  underfiand  not,  to  be  equally 
**  excellent,  and  that  it  would  appear  fo  if  I  underOood  all  lis 
**  concerns,"  Finally,  This  fuppofition  takes  off  all  pretence 
of  hefitation  about  tlie  meaning  of  the  fcripfurcs,  as  to  what  the 
man  is  particularly  concerned  in.  The  l^ory  of  the  neceffity 
of  an  infallible  judge,  is  built  upon  this  fuppofition.  That  the 
Icrlptures  are  lb  obfcure  in  matters  neceQarily  relating  to  the 
taith  and  pra6lice  of  the  vulgar,  that  they  cannot  be  underfiood 
by  them  fatisfyingly,  in  the  nfe  of  appointed  means.  This  fup- 
pofition is  palpably  falfe,  contrary  to  fcripture,  reafon  and  ex- 
perience, as  is  evinced  by  our  writers  againfi  the  Papifls,  who 
fYjily  confider  their  pleas,  and  particularly  thofe  which  Her- 
bert and  the  Deifis  have  borrowed  from  them,  who  may  be 
confulted  hy  the  reader. 

3.  Thus  far  I  have  made   appear,  that   the  layman  has  the 
jufleft  reafon  in  the  world    to  look  upon  it  as  his  duty,  or  the 
will  of  God,  that  he  ihould   give  the  fcrlptures  fuch  a   perufaL 
2.  That  in  doing  his   will  there  is  a  way,  at  leaft,  fuppofable, 
wherein  he  may  reach  full  fatisfadlion  in  his  own  mind,  in  defi- 
ance of  the  Deifis'  queries  about  the  divinity  of  the  icriptures, 
and  reach  the  higheft  rational  fecurity,  even  that  of  faith,  bot- 
tomed upon  divine  tefiimony,  and  inward  fenfe  or  experience  ; 
whicli   Herbert   himfelf,  upon  all  occafions,  truly  afferts  to  be 
the  higheQ  certainty.   I  Ihali  new  advance  one  flcp  further,  and 
aiTert,  that  this  is  more  than  a  mere  fuppofition,  that  it  is  matter 
of  fa6t,  that  they,  who  do  receive  the  fcriptures  in  a  due  man- 
ner, eipeciaiiy  among  the  laity  or  illiterate,  do  find   and   reft 
upon  this  ground  in  their  perfuafion.      Upon  this  ground  it  was 
alone,  that  multitudes  did  at  firft    receive   it,    and  for  it  reject 
tnz  religions  they  were  bred  in  ;  and  not  as  the  Deifis  imagine, 
upon  a  blind  veneration  to  teachers,  piiefis  or  preachers,  whom, 
by  education,  they  were  taught  to  abhor :    And  upon  this  ground 
they  fiill  do  adhere  to  it,  and  receive  it  as  written  in  the  fcrip- 
tuies.     The   words  of  Mr.    Baxter,  as  I  find  them  quoted   by 
Mr.  Wilfon   (for   1  have  not   fecn   Baxter's  book  in  anfwer  to 
Herbert  de  Veritatc)  are  remarkable  to  this  purpofe,  **  1  think, 
**  fiiys  he.  That  in  the  very  hearing  or  reading,  God's  Spirit  of- 
**  ten  fo  concurreth  as  thai  the  will  iticlf  fhould  be  touched  wich 
*'  an  internal  guft  or  ia'our  of  the  goodnefs   contained  in    the 
*'  doclriije,  and  at   the  fame  timt  the    underfianding  with   an 

**   internal 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       389 

**  Internal  irradiation,  which  breeds  fuch  a  fudden  apprehen- 
**  fion  of  the  verity  of  it,  as  nature  gives  men  of  natural  prin- 
*'  ciples.  And  I  am  perfuaded,  that  this  increafed  by  more 
**  experience  and  love,  and  inward  gufls,  doth  hold  moft  Chrif- 
**  tians  faftcr  to  Chrift,  than  naked  reafonings  could  do.  And 
**  were  it  not  for  this,  unlearned  ignorant  perfons  v/ere  ftill  in 
**  danger  of  apoftafy,  by  every  fubtle  caviller  that  aflaults 
*'  them.  And  I  believe  that  all  true  Chriftians  have  this  kind 
*'  of  internal  knowledge,  from  the  fuitablenefs  of  the  truth  and 
**  gooiinefs  of  the  gofpel  to  their  new-quickened,  illuminated, 
**  fancSrified  fouls*."  The  apoftle  tells  us,  God  who  commanded 
the  light  to  ikine  out  of  darknefsj  hath  fltined  into  our  hearts,  to 
give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jejus  Chrijh — If  the  Deift  fay.  How  proves  the  layman  this  to 
me  V  I  anfwer.  That  is  not  the  queftion.  For  the  defign  of 
the  Deifts  in  thefe  queries,  is  ta  prove,  that  the  layman  cannot 
be  affured  about  the  original  and  meaning  of  revelation  in  his 
own  mind,  and  io  muft  clofe  with  their  catholick  religion.  Now 
in  dire6l  contradiction  to  this,  I  fay,  here  is  a  ground  to  ftand 
upon.  And  if  he  has  this  ground,  even  a  fober  Deift  muft  allow 
he  has  no  reafon  to  be  moved  from  it,  but  muft  fully  know  that 
the  doBrines  are  of  God,  And  fo  I  have  overthrown  the  defign 
of  the  query.  As  for  the  Deifts'  queftion,  How  he  proves  it  to 
others  ?  it  is  impertinent.  It  is  not  reafonable  to  expe6t,  that 
every  common  man  can  ftop  the  mouths  of  gain-fayers.  It  is 
enough  for  him,  if  he  can  give  a  reafon,  which  is  good,  and  muft 
be  owned  fuch  in  itfelf.  If  the  Deift  queftions  matters  of  fa6i:, 
that  he  finds  matters  fo  and  fo  ;  I  anfwer,  A  blind  man  may 
queftion  whether  I  fee  this  paper  now  before  me  ;  and  yet  I 
have  good  reafon  to  believe  it  is  there,  though  I  ftiould  fail  of 
convincing  him. 

If  the  Deift  fay,  I  have  perufed  the  icriptures,  and  found  no 
fuch  efFe6t;  I  anfwer,  in  matters  of  experience  one  affirmative 
proves  more  than  twenty  negatives;  unlefs  the  application  is  in 
all  refpe6\s  equal,  and  the  efFe6l  depend  upon  a  neceffary  caufe: 
For  where  a  voluntary  agent  is  the  caufe  of  the  effect,  there  it 
does  not  neceflarily  follow  upon  the  like  application.  But  to 
wave  this  general,  which  would  require  more  room  to  explain, 
than  1  can  allow  it  in  this  place,  I  fay  further,  to  the  complain- 

er, 

*  Baxter's  Animad.  on  Herbert  de  Verii.  pag.  155.  quoted  by  M. 
J.  Wilfon,  Scriptures  interpreter  alTerted,  Appendix  pag.  20. 


590  AN    INQ_UIRY   INTO    THE  chap.  xx. 

er,  Have  you  given  the  fcrlptiires  fuch  a  perufal,  as  I  have  prov- 
ed in  a  way  of  duty  you  are  obliged  to  do?  Have  you  ufed  the 
iT»eans,  in  fo  far,  at  ieaft,  as  is  poffible  for  you  ?  Have  you 
fought,  have  3^ou  waited  for  God's  guidance  and  prefervation 
from  rnlRake,  and  from  unjuft  prejudices  againft  hini,  his  works 
his  word,  (if  this  be  fuch)  and  his  ways?  Do  you  carefully  iludy 
to  avoid  what  may  reafonably  be  thoupjit,  even  by  a  confiderate 
Heathen,  to  obflru6i  the  grant  of  the  ailiflance  defired  from  God? 
Do  you  carefully  avoid  known  fin?  Do  you  endeavour  the  per- 
formance of  what  you  know  to  be  duty?  Are  you  refolved  to 
follow  in  pra6\ice  where  light  leads?  If  you  dare  not  frankly 
anfwer,  you  have  no  reafon  to  complain*  For  my  own  part,  I 
am  perfuaded,  that  in  fact,  none  who  have  done  his  will  even 
thus  far,  have  reafon  to  table  a  complaint  againfl  the  word. 
Others  Mdio  take  a  quite  contrary  courfe,are  unreafonable  in  the 
complaint.  Difputes  about  what  might  be  the  cafe,  upon  fup- 
poiition  of  a  perfon's  doing  ail,  that  in  his  prefent  circumftances 
he  is  able  to  do,  and  yet  mifs  of  fatisfa6iion  as  to  the  divine  au- 
thority of  the  word,  until  the  fubjedl  of  this  queftion  be  found, 
I  think  not  myfelf  concerned  in,  at  Ieaft  in  a  controverfy  with 
the  Deifts.  It  is  unreafonable  to  queftion  thefcripture's  author- 
ity, or  the  evidence  of  it,  upon  fuppofitions  that  never  were  in 
being,  and  I  am  perfuaded,  never  ihall  have  a  being. 

But  thefe  things  I  leave.  This  difpute  lies  wholly  out  of  our 
road.  But  I  have  been  obliged  to  this  digreflion,  in  purfuit  of 
the  Deifts'  impertinent  queries.  I  fay  impertinent,  becaufe, 
were  all  granted  that  is  aimed  at  in  thefe  queries,  it  will  not  a- 
vail  one  rufti,  towards  the  proof  of  the  point  the  Deifts  are  on, 
viz.  the  validity  of  their  religion :  For  were  revealed  religion 
uncertain,  is  it  a  good  confequence,  that  therefore  the  Deifts' 
religion  is  certain  ?  What  I  have  faid  in  defence  of  revealed  re- 
ligion, I  would  have  to  be  looked  upon  only  as  a  digreiiion, 
and  not  as  a  full  declaration  of  my  opinion  ;  much  lefs  would  I 
have  this  underftood  as  the  fubftance  of  vvhat  can  be  pleaded  on 
behalf  of  that  blcfied  book  that  has  brought  life  andvtmnortaitly 
to  light.  This  is  not  the  hundredth  part  of  what  even  I  could 
fay,  were  this  my  fubje6t.  And  others  have  faid,  and  can 
plead  much  more  than  I  am  able.  Hov/ever,  this  I  owed  to  the 
truth  of  God,  Such  as  would  fee  all  thefe  pretences  againft  re- 
velation, repelled,  are  defired  to  confult  thofe,  who  delignedly 
treat  of  this'fubje^t. 

There 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.        39! 

There  are  other  things  in  thefe  queries  now  animadverted  up- 
on,  that  deierve  rather  contempt  than  an  anfwer.  In  particular,' 
it  is  fuppofed,  as  one  of  the  principal  foundations  of  thofe  twcj 
queries,  now  under  confideration.  That  a  man  cannot  reach 
certainty  in  his  own  mind  upon  foiid  grounds,  and  rationally 
acquiefce  in  it  as  fuch,  unlefs  **  he  knows  all  that  can  be  faid 
**  againfl  it,  read  ail  books,  converfe  with  all  learned  men^ 
*'  «Scc."  than  which  there  is  not  a  more  extravagant  exprefiion  in 
B(:vis  and  Garagantua.  Admit  it,  and  I  (hall  demonftrate  a- 
gainft  any  that  will  undertake  it,  that  nothing  is  certain.  I 
cannot  but  admire  that  fo  learned  a  perfon  as  Herbert  could  ufe 
fuch  an  extravagant  fuppofition.  But  what  will  not  a  bad  caufe 
drive  a  man  upon  ?  1  his  confirms  what  is  ordinarily  obferved, 
that  there  is  no  opinion,  however  unreafonable,  but  has  feme 
learned  man  for  its  patron,  if  not  inventor. 

We  {hall  now  go  on  to  the  reft  of  the  queries,  which  will  be  of 
more  eafy  difpatch.  That  I  have  dwelt  fo  long  upontbefe  two, 
is  out  Of  a  regard  to  revelation  and  its  honour,  and  not  from  anv 
weight  in  the  queries.  As  for  them,  this  alone  had  been  a  fuf- 
ficient  anfwer,  which  I  propofe  in  a  way  of  a  counter-query^ 
and  conclude  with  it — *'  If  a  layman  that  is  illiterate  cannot  be 
'*  fatisfied  as  to  tlie  truth  of  revealed  religion,  how  doth  this 
**  prove  the  Deifts'  five  articles  to  be  a  fufficient  and  good  re- 
**  ligion." 

Query  Vh  *'  Suppofing  all  true  in  tlieir  originals,  and  in 
'*  their  explications,  whether  yet  they  be  fo  good  for  the  in- 
**  ftru6\ing  of  mankir?d,  that  bring  pardon  of  fin  upon  fuch 
'*  eafy  terms,  as  to  believe  the  bufinefs  is  dene  to  our  hand?" 
And, 

Query  VIL  **  Whether  tipis  dotlrine  doth  not  derogate  from 
'*  virtue  and  goodnefs,  while  our  beft  a6iions  are  reprefentcd  as 
**  iraperfe<5l  and  fiiiful,  and  that  it  is  impoflible  to  keep  the  ten 
**  commandments,  fo  as  God  will  accept  of  our  acSlionfj,  doing 
**  the  beR  we  can?"  Thus  Blount  gives  us  Herbert's  fixth  query 
in  two.*  There  is  no  material  difference  in  Herbert,  fave  only 
that  he  harps  upon  the  old  ftring,  and  fpends  himfelf  in  bitter 
invectives  againit  the  fcripture-do6lrine  about  the  decrees  of  God, 
of  which  we  have  faid  enough  before.  And  therefore  I  think  it 
iieedlefs  to  burden  this  paper  wiih  liis  woid?. 

"  The 

*  Blount  Rel.  Laici,  pag*  91.  92. 


^ip        AN    INdOiRY    INTO    THE       ciur.  xk. 

The  two  former  queries  (truck  at  fcripture-revelation  itfelf, 
thele  two  ftrike  at  the  matter  contained  in  the  fcriptures.  And 
here  there  is  a  double  charge  laid  againft  the  dodlrine  revealed 
in  the  fcriptures,  as  black  as  hell  can  invent,  and  as  faiie  as 
it  is  black.  The  fixth  query  charges  it  with  favouring  fin,  by 
bringing  pardon  upon  too  eafy  terms  ;  and  the  ieventh  charges 
It  with  derogating  from   virtue. 

For  an  anfwer  to  both,  I  might  oppone  experience*  Sin  is 
no  where  by  any  fo  oppofed,  virtue  no  where  fo  fi ncerely  cul- 
tivated, as  among  thofe  who  fincereiy  receive  the  do6lfine  of 
fatisfaBioHy  and  believ^e  the  utmofi  as  to  the  ijiahility  of  man  in 
his  prefent  fallen  cafe,  without  fupernatural  ailiftance,  and 
gracious  acceptance,  to  pleafe  God.  Dare  the  Dcifts  compare 
with  them  in  this  refpe6t  ?  If  they  fhould,  1  know  what  would 
be  the  iffue,  if  the  judge  had  confciecce  or  honefty.  A  Socra- 
tes, Seneca  or  Plato,  defervcs  not  to  be  named  in  the  fame  day 
ivith  the  meaneft  feriousChriftian,  that  believes  thefe  do6lrines, 
either  with  refpecl  to  piety  toward  God,  or  duty  toward  man. 

But  as  to  thenrft  charge,  1  fay  the  ground  of  it  is  falfe  ;  the 
query  is  difingenuous  and  deceitful.  The  ground  of  it  is  a  fup- 
pohtion,  that  revelation  excludes  the  neceflity  of  repentance. 
This  is  manifeftly  falfe  :  both  Herbert  and  Blount  knew  it  to 
be  falfe  ;  and  could  not  but  do  fo,  if  ever  they  read  the  Bible 
And  the  query  comparing  revelation  upon  this  known  mifre- 
prefentation,  with  natural  religion,  is  fhamcfuUy  difingenuous. 
Let  the  query  be,  Whether  it  is  more  favourable  to  fin,  to  fay, 
it  is  not  to  be  pardoned  without  a  fatisfa6lion  to  jufiice  by  Chrift, 
and  repentance  upon  our  part,  as  revelation  teaches  ;  or,  that 
upon  our  repentance  merely,  God  is  obliged  to  pardon  it,  as 
the  Deifts  (ay  ?  Now,  I  leave  it  to  the  Deifls  to  anfwer  this. 

As  to  the  fecond  charge,  revelation  derogates  nothing  from 
virtue.  It  teaches  indeed  that  our  bell  a6fions  are  imperfedl, 
and  he  knows  not  what  perfedion  means,  or  what  is  required 
thereto,  that  will  deny  it.  It  teaches  that  they  who  are  in  the 
flejli  cannot  pleajt  God.  It  talks  at  another  rate  than  Herbertj 
ot  the  condition  of  finful  man,  as  to  acceptance  with  God.  He 
gives  him  a  direction,  **  Cumbonum  pro  virili  pr^cJiaSf  vurce- 
**  dem  a  bonitatc  ilia  Jiipremd  pcte^  exige.,  hah  ;  quo  paBo  re- 
*'  vera  fapies**''  1  hat  is,  "  Manfully  perform  your  duty  as 
**  you  can,  and  (v/hatever  fin  remain)  alk,  demand,  and  have 

**  your 

*  Herbert  de  Vciitate,  rag.   io8. 


PklNClFLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       393 

**  your  reward.  This  js  the  way  to  be  truly  wife."  This  pe- 
tulent  advice  the  fcripture  does  not  juftify,  and  fober  rcafon  re- 
probrates.  Where  i\n  interveens,  whatever  the  finncr  does,  in 
way  of  obedience,  I  conceive  it  will  be  as  good  wifdom  as  our 
author  teaches  him,  to  be  very  fober  with  his  deijiciuls,  Ect 
to  return  :  Revelation,  by  teaching  man's  inability,  doth  net 
hinder  him  from  virtue;  but  takes  him  off  from  his  own  ftrength, 
which  would  fail  him  in  the  performance,  and  leads  him  where 
he  may  get  (Irength,  and  where  innumerable  perfons  have  got 
ftrength  to  perform  duty  acceptably  ;  and  it  points  to  the  only 
ground,  whereon  fmful  and  imperfe61  obedience  can  be  accent- 
ed with,  or  expedt  a  reward  from  God. 

Q^uery  VIIL  *'  Whether  fpeaking  good  words,  thinking 
*^  good  thoughts,  and  doing  good  a6ticns,  he  not  the  jud  cx- 
*'  ercife  of  a  man's  life  ?  Or  that  without  embracing  the  fcrefaid 
*'  five  principles  or  fundamentals,  it  be  impcffible  to  keep  peace 
**  among  men,  that  God  may  be  well  ferved  ?"  Thus  Blount*. 
This  is  Herbert's  feventh  and  laO  query,  and  he  only  adds  one 
claufe  to  it,  wanting  here  ;  *'  Whether  the  layn-an  may  not 
*/  fpend  his  time  better  in  thcfe  exercifcs  mentioned,  than  if  lie 
**  emplcved  it  in  deciding  contrcvcrfies  he  does  net  under- 
*^  fland.f" 

The  fuppcfsd  neceflity  for  tli^  layman  perplexing  himfelf  with 
contrive: r.es,  at  wliich  Herbert  lx:rc  aims,  in  cafe  he  fee  meet 
to  embrace  revebtion,  we  have  above  weiglied  and  raft.  But 
as  \o  the  query  itfeif,  it  is  utterly  impertinent.  For  this  is  the 
qucO.ion  tiicy  fhou'd  have  propofed,  "  Whether  their  religion 
*'  is  fufHcient  to  bring  a  man  to  thefe  juR  exerciics,  and  to 
*'  m-intain  peace  in  fociety  r"  And  not  as  thev  propofe  if, 
"  Whether  thefe  exercifes  be  in  themfclves  good  ?"  which  no- 
body denies:  let  this  be  the  queftion,  and  v/e  anfwer  negatively. 
For  this  <ve  have  given  fufScient  reafons  above. 

Oueiy  IX,  '*  Whether  the  forefaid  five  principles  do  ret  bcfi: 
*'  agree  with  the  precepts  given  in  the  ten  corr;mandrrents,  and 
**  with  the  two  precepts  of  Jefus  Chrii),  viz.  To  love  God  above 
**  all,  and  cur  neighbour  as  ourfelves?  as  well  as  with  the 
**  v/ordsof  St.  Peter,  That  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  God, 
**  and  worketh  rigUiecuiaels  is  accepted  cf  Gcd  t  ?" 

C  c  c  '  This 

*  Blount  Rel.  Laic],  pag.  92.  +  Heib.  Kck  Lajci.  Ap.en. 

1  Blount,  ibid,  pag.  92,  93. 


394  AN  INQ^UIRY    INTO    THE  chap.  xx. 

This  query  Is  the  fame  with  Flerbert's  feventh  and  laft  per- 
fuafive  to  Deifm,  vv'hich  we  have  anfwered  above.  It  is  fallely 
iuppofed  that  revelati®n  teaches,  that  the  knowledge  cf  the  ten 
commands,  or  Cliriil's  fummary  of  them,  Is  fufficient  to  falva- 
tion.  Yea,  revelation  teaches  exprefsly,  that  no  man  can  prac- 
tife  them  without  grace  from  Chrift,  and  that  there  is  no  other 
way  of  falvatlon  but  by  faith  in  him.  Again,  it  is  falfely  fuppo- 
ied,  that  the  agreement  cf  thefe  articles  with  (that  is  to  fay,  their 
not  contradiding)  thcfe  commands,  proves  them  a  fufficient  re- 
ligion. This  argument,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  it  proves  too 
much;  for  it  v/ili  prove  any  one  of  them  alone  to  be  fufficient. 
If  the  Delfts  mean,  that  their  five  articles,  not  only  are  not  in- 
confiftent  with,  but  fufficient  to  bring  men  the  length  required 
by  the  ten  commands,  our  Lord's  fummary  of  them,  or  to  fear 
God  and  work  rigkteoufnefsy  as  Cornelius  did  :  I  anfwer  nega- 
tively to  the  queftion,  they  can  bring  no  man  to  this.  Corne- 
lius, of  whom  Peter  fpeaks,  had  embraced  the  Old  Teftament 
revelation.  What  Peter  fpeaks  of  men  of  all  nation  being  ac- 
etptid  with  God,  relates  to  the  difcovery  God  had  made  to  him 
©f  his  defign  to  admit  men  of  all  nations  promlfcuoufly  to  accep- 
tance with  him  through  the  gofpel-revelation :  And  confequently, 
that  the  opinion  hitherto  received  by  Peter  and  other  Jews,  of 
the  continued  confinement  of  revealed  religion  and  its  privileges 
to  Ifrpel,  was  a  miRake.  So  that  this  place  helps  net  the  De- 
ilh,  if  it  is  not  cut  ofi  from  its  fcope  and  cohefion,  or  interpre- 
ted without  refpefl  to  it.  This  vvay  of  interpretation  offcrip- 
ture  is  not  fafe.  I  know  not  where  Mr.  Blcunt  learned  it; 
but  I  can  tell  him  where  there  is  a  precedent  of  it— *Matt.  iv. 
And  if  the  Deiils  have  a  n:ind  to  follow  that  precedent,  they 
liiall  not  be  followed  by  me. 

Qiitry  X.  *'  Whether  the  doctrine  of  faith  can  by  human  rea- 
'*  fon  be  fupnofed  or  granted  to  be  infallible,  unlefs  we  are  in- 
*'  faliibly  aifured,  that  thofe  who  teach  this  doclrine  do  know 
*'   the  fecret  counfels  of  God  ?*" 

To  this  I  anhver.  That  I  am  fufficiently  fecured  as  to  the  In- 
fallible certainty  of  the  dod^rine,  if  I  have  received  the  fcrip- 
tures  upon  the  ground  above-mentioned,  without  fuppofing  any 
who  now  teach  it,  to  have  any  further  acquaintance  with  the  fe- 
cret counfels  of  God,  than  the  word  gives  them. 

Q^ucry 

*  Blount  Pvel.  Liiiti,  pa^.  95. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       395 

Q^uery  XL  "  Whether  all  things  in  the  fcriptures,  (befides  the 
"  moral  part,  which  agrees  vviih  our  five  principles)  luch  as  pro- 
*'  phecy,  miracles  and  revelations,  depeiiding  on  the  hiHory, 
**  may  not  be  fo  far  examined,  as  to  be  made  appear  by  what 
**  authority  they  are  or  miay  be  received  *?" 

I  anfwer,  Revelation,  in  all  its  parts,  is  capable  to  ftand  the 
tcft  of  the  ftri6\eft  trial,  provided  it  be  jufr,  and  managed  as 
becomes  it.  But  I  rauft  tell  the  Deifts  one  thing  in  their  ear. 
That  if  the  fcriptures  once  evince  themfelves  to  be  from  God, 
i)y  fufTicient  evidence,  they  are  obliged,  upon  their  peril,  to  re- 
ceive all  that  it  teaches  them,  though  they  cannot  prove  it  by 
reafon;  nay,  nor  eiiplain  it.  But  what  if  any  revealed  do£\rine 
be  contrary  to  reafon  ?  Upon  the  forgoing  fuppontion,  this  que- 
ry cannot  be  excufed  of  blafphemy,  but  is  highly  impertinent 
and  unreafonable. 

Query  XIL  **  Whether  in  human  reafon  any  one  may,  or 
**  ought  to  be  convinced  by  one  fingle  teftimony,  fo  far  as  to  be- 
**  lieve  things  contrary  to,  or  befides  reafon  f?" 

One  Jingle  tefiimony  is  writ  in  a  different  chara6\er  in  the  que- 
ry, perhaps  to  give  us  to  underfland,  that  by  it  is  meant  the 
tefiimony  of  the  revealer,  God»  And  it  cannot  reafonably  be 
underftood  of  any  other  :  for  upon  no  other  fingle  Ujlimony  favc 
that  of  Godi  is  an  aflent  to  revelation  demanded,  or  pleaded 
for,  by  thofe  he  oppofes. 

This  being  premifed,  I  fay  this  query  confifts,  and  is  made 
up  of  three  as  impious  fuppofitions  as  can  enter  the  thoughts  of 
any  of  the  fons  of  men  ;  befides  that  they  are  mutually  deflruc- 
tive  of  one  another,  i.  It  fuppofes  that  the  one  fingle  tefiimo- 
ny of  God  is  not  a  fufficient  warrant  for  believing  whatever  he 
ftiall  reveal.  2.  It  fuppofes  that  a  revelation  come  from  God 
may  contain  things  really  contradictory  to  our  reafon.  3.  \t 
fuppofes  that  the  (ingle  teilimony  of  God  is  not  a  fufficlent  ground 
to  believe  things  that  are  befides  our  reafon,  though  they  be  not 
contrary  to  it,  that  is,  truths,  which  we  cannot  prove  by  reafon, 
or  about  which  there  are  fome  difficulties  that  we  cannot  folve. 
Take  thefe  three  impious  fuppofitions  out  of  the  query,  'and  it 
}i:.s  no  difRculty  in  it.  If  once  we  fuppofe  a  revelation  to  be 
from  God,  we  mufi;  lay  afide  the  fecond  fuppofition  as  impcfTi- 
ble,  viz.  That  it  can  contain  any  tiling  really  contrary  to  reajou 
Set  afide  this,  which  makes  the  ({wzxy  Jclo  dt  fe^  defiroy  iuelf, 

and 
*  Elcunt  Rel,  Laid,  pag,  9j|,  f  Ibid,  pag.  94. 


396  AN   INQUIRY   INTO    THE  ghap.  xx. 

and  let  the  qiieRion  be  propofed.  Whether  we  may  believe  upon 
thQ  Jif?oJe  fejiirnony  of  God  whatever  does  liot  really  contradict 
our  reaion,  though  it  contains  feme  difficulties,  which  we  can- 
not folve?  And  then  I  fay,  it  Is  impious  to  deny  it, 

Ojiery  XllL  And  laflly,  **  Whether,  if  It  were  granted  they 
**  had  revelations,  I  am  obliged  to  accept  of  another's  revela- 
**  tion  for  the  ground  of  my  faith?  EfpeciaJly  if  it  doth  any 
**  WTxy  oppofe  thefe  five  articles,  that  are  grounded  upon  the 
**  law  of  nature,  which  is  God's  univerfal  magna  charta,  enait- 
**  ed  by  the  All-wife  and  Supreme  Being,  from  the  beginning 
^'  of  the  world,  and  therefore  not  to  be  deftroyed  or  altered  by 
**  every  whin  ling  prcclaniation  of  an  enthufiaft  *." 

This  query  is  of  the  fame  alloy  v/ith  the  former.  To  it  we 
anfwer  fhortly,  The  Cbriftian  revelation,  (in  others  we  are  not 
concerned)  exhibits  matters  of  univerfal  concernment,  upon 
evidence  of  their  divinity,  capable  to  fatisfy  thofe  who  now 
live,  as  well  as  thofe  to  whom  they  M'ere  originally  made  ;  and 
jfo  arc  Impertinently  called  another  s  revelation.  And  we  are 
obliged  to  receive  it  as  the  ground  of  our  faith,  and  rule  of  our 
]3ra6iice  as  much  as  they.  The  fuppofitlon  that  is  added,  that 
it  contains  do6)rines  or  precepts  contrary  to  the  law  of  nature, 
is  Impious  and  falfe.  What  he  adds  further  about  the  "  whilHIng 
proclamations  of  enthufiafis,"  if  it  is  not  applied  to  the  facred 
writers,  we  are  not  concerned  in  It.  If  it  is  applied  to  thepi, 
Firjl,  It  is  falfe,  that  they  taught  any  thing  contrary  to  the  law 
of  nature.  Secondly,  It  is  impious  to  call  them,  in  way  of  con- 
tempt, entliujiajl$  ;  or,  at  leaft,  it  Is  intolerably  bold  for  any 
man  to  call  them  fuch,  before  he  has  proven  it  ;  which  he  never 
did,  nor  v/ill  all  the  Deirts  on  earth  ever  be  able  to  do. 
Thirdly,  It  was  rude  and  unmannerly  to  treat  them  with  fo  much 
contempt,  efpeclally  without  arguments  proving  the  charge, 
whom  the  whole  authority  of  the  land,  all  the  perfons  vefted 
with  If,  and  the  body  of  the  people,  refpedt  as  men  Infallibly 
directed  of  God.  Fourthly,  It  v.as  difingenuous  to  treat  them 
thus,  after  fuch  pretenfions  as  our  author  had  made  of  refpeft  to 
them,  in  this  and  his  other  books. 

Finally,  Mr.  Blount,  inOead  of  a  fourteenth  query,  concludes 
with  the  teftimony  of  Jufiin  Martyr,  as  probative  of  his  point. 
His  words  run  thus,  "Finally,  fubmitting  my  difcourfe  to  my 
*'  impartial  and  judicious  reader,  I  Ihall  conclude  with  the  faying 

*\  of 
*  .Blount  Rel.  Laici,  pag,  94, 


PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  MODERN  DEISTS.       397 

''  cf  Juftin  Martyr,  ApoL  cont.  Tnphon,  pag.  83.  "  That  all 
"  thoie  v^ho  lived  according  to  the  rule  of  realbn,  were  Chrif- 
**  tiaiis,  notwiihftanding  that  they  might  have  been  accounte-d 
^*  as  Arheifts  ;  fuch  as  among  the  Greeks  were  Socrates,  Hier- 
'*  aclitus,  and  the  like;  and  among  the  Barbarians,  Abraham 
*«  and  Azarias  :  For  all  thofe  who  lived,  or  do  now  live,  ac- 
'*  cording  to  the  rule  of  reafon,  are  Chriftians,  and  in  an  afl'ured 
*'  quiet  condition  *," 

As  to  this  teftimony  of  Juflin  Martyr,  it  is  not  probative  with 
us;  though  we  honour  the  fathers,  yet  we  do  not  think  ourfelves 
obliged  to  fubmit  to  all  their  di6tates.  This  is  faid,  but  not 
proven  by  him,  either  by  fcripture  or  reafon.  And  I  fear  not 
to  fay,  It  is  more  than  he  or  any  other  can  prove.  Abraham  is 
impertinently  claffed  amongft  thofe  who  wanted  revelation  ;  So- 
crates and  Hieraclitus,  in  fo  far  as  they  lived  according  to  rea- 
i'on,  are  alTuredly  praife-worthy,  and  upon  this  account  are  not 
to  be  reckoned  Atheifts.  That  they  were  Chriflians  I  flatly 
deny.  Nor  can  it  be  proven  from  fcripture  or  reafon  that  their 
condition  is  ajfuredly  quiet.  And  further  than  this  I  am  not 
concerned  to  pafs  any  judgment  about  their  ftate  at  prefent ; 
What  it  is  that  day  zoill  manifejl* 


Blount  Rel.  Laici,  pag,  94,  95. 


END  OF  THE  INQUIRY. 


A     N 


ESSAY 


CONCERNING    THE 


NATURE  OF  FAITHi 


O    R, 


THE  GROUND  UPON   WHICH 


Faith  affents  to  the  Scriptures: 


\V  HEREIN 


THE  OPINION  OF  THE  RATIONALISTS  ABOUT  IT,  IS  PROPOSED 

AND    EXAMINED,    ESPECIALLY   AS    IT    IS     STATED    BY 

THE  LEARNED    MR.  LOCKE  IN  HIS  BOOK  ON 

HUMAN    UNDERSTANDING* 


Br  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


AN    E  S  S  A  Y,  &c. 


CHAP.       I. 

Containing  fome  general  Remarks  concerning  Kn.owledget  Faiths 
and  particular iy  divine  Faiths  and  that  both  as  to  the  faculty 
and  aElings  thereof » 

ALL  knowledge  is  commonly,  and  that  not  unfitly,  refer- 
red to  the  underftanding  or  intellective  power  of  the 
mind  of  man,  which  is  converfant  about  truth.  Our  affent  to, 
or  perfuafion  of  any  truth  is  founded,  either  i.  Upon  the  immedi- 
ate perception  of  the  agreement  or  difagreement  of  our  ideas, 
and  io  is  called  intuitive  knowledge.  Or  2.  It  refults  from  a 
comparifon  of  our  ideas  with  fome  intermediate  ones,  which 
helps  us  to  difcern  their  agreement  or  difagreement;  and  this 
goes  under  the  name  of  rational  knowledge.  Or  3.  It  leans 
upon  the  information  of  our  fenfes,  and  this  is  fcnjihle  know^ 
ledge.  Or  4,  It  depends  upon  the  teftimony  of  credible  witnef- 
les.     And  this  is  faith. 

i'aitk  agii'm,  if  it  is  founded  upon  the  tePilrnony  of  angels, 
may  be  termed  angelical ;  if  on  the  teftimony  of  men,  human; 
and  if  it  is  founded  on  the  teftimony  of  God,  it  is  called  divine 
faith:  It  is  of  this  lafl;  we  defign  to  difcourfe,  as  what  particu- 
larly belongs  to  our  prefent  purpofe. 

When  wa  fpeak  of  divine  faith,  we  either  mean  the  faculty 
or  power  whereby  we  affent  unto  divine  teftimony  ;  or  the  af- 
fent given  by  that  power.  Bpth  are  fignified  by  that  name,  and 
faith  is  promifcuoufly  ufed  for  the  one  or  other* 

D  d  d  Faith 


402  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNiNG| 

Faith,  as  it  denotes  the  faculty,  power  or  ability  of  Our  minds 
to  perceive  the  evidence  of,  and  aflent  to  divine  teflimony,  is 
again  either  ncitural  ox  J'upernaturat,  That  naturally  v/e  have.?- 
faculty  capable  of  afl'euling  in  Ibme  fort  to  divine  teflimony,  ir, 
denied  bv  none,  fo  far  as  I  know.  BiU  that  ability  whereby  we 
are  at  lead  habitually  fitted,  difpofed  and  enabled  to  alTent  in  a 
due  manner  to,  and  receive  with  a  juft  regard,  the  teiiinnonycl" 
God,  no  iiwn  by  nature  has.      This  is  a  fupernaturai  gift. 

Several  queuions  i  know  are  moved  concerning  this  abiiily. 
It  belongs  not  to  my  fubject,  neither  doth  my  inclination  lead 
me  to  dip  much  in  them  at  prefent,  I  (hail  only  fugged  the  few 
remarks  enfuing. 

1.  It  feems  unquePiionably  clear,  that  man  originally  had  a 
pov/er,  ability  or  faculty  capable  of  pcrccivirig,  difcerning  and 
aUbnting  to  divine  revelations  upon  their  proper  evidence  :  For 
it  is  plain,  that  God  did  reveal  himfelf  to  man  in  innocency,. 
and  that  he  made  man  capable  of  converfe  with  himfelf.  But  if 
inch  a  faculty,  as  this  we  fpeak  of,  had  been -wanting,  he  had 
neither  been  capable  of  thofe  revelations,  nor  fitted  for  con- 
verfe with  God. 

2.  It  may  moO;  convincingly  be  made  out,  That  all  our  fa- 
culties have  fufFered  a  dreadful  fhock,  andare  mightily  iujpaired 
by  the  entrance  of  fin,  and  corruption  of  our  natures  thereon  en- 
fuing ;  and  particularly  our  underdandings  are  fo  far  difabled, 
efpeciaily  in  things  pertaining  unto  God,  that  we  cannot  in  a 
dv.Q  manner,  perceive,  difcern  or  entertain  divine  revelations 
upon  their  proper  evidence,  unto  the  glory  of  God,  and  our 
own  advantage,  unlefs  our  natures  are  fupernaturally  renewed. 
But  this  notwithflanding,  the  faculty  of  affenting  to  divine  tcfb'- 
mony  is  not-quite  loft,  though  it  is  impaired  and  rendered  unfit 
for  perfor^^ming  its  proper  work  in  a  due  manner.  I  know  none 
who  alTcrts,  that  any  of  our  faculties  v/ere  entirely  ioft  by  the 
fall.*  In  renovation  our  faculties  are  renewed,  but  there  is  no 
v/ord  of  implanting  new  ones.  It  is  certain,  unrenewed  men, 
fuch  as  Balaam  and  others,  have  had  revelations  made  to  them, 
and  did  affent  to  thofe  revelations.  Nor  is  it  kfs  cl^ir,  that 
the  devils  believe  and  tremble- 

3.  Wliether 

*  '«  We  cannot  conceive  how  reafon  fhould  be  prejudiced  ^by  the 
*'  advancement  of  the  rational  faculties  of  our  fjuls  with  rcfped  unto 
*f  their  exercife  toward  their  proper  objeds ;  which  is  all  we  affign 
<*  unto  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  m.uter."  Dr.  O^vcii  o-z 
ihe  Sph-iti-  Preface,  pag^,  9. 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  403 

^.  V/hetlicr  men,  in  a  (late  of  nature,  whore  niirds  are  not 
renc-A^cd,  uizy  not  io  far  difcern  and  be  affe(Sted  by  the  cha- 
raftcrs  and  evidences  of  Gcd  impreft  upon  divine  revelations, 
particularly  the  fcriptures,  where  thofe  evidences  fl;ine  brightly, 
as  thereby  to  be  obliged,  and  ailuaiiy  drawn  to  give  (omQ  ibrt 
of  affent  into  the  teftimony  of  God,  I  fhali  ndt  pcfitively  deter- 
mine :  though  the  afririnative  feems  probable  to  me.  The 
imprefs  of  a  Deity  is  no  iefs  evident  on  the  i'criptures  than  hiy 
other  works.  He  has  magnijied  this  word  alDve  all  his  name. 
Befides,  I  do  not  fee,  how  the  very  faculty  itfelf  can  be  thought. 
to  remain,  if  it  is  not  capable  of  difcerning  any  thing  of  God, 
where  he  gives  the  moft  full  and  convincing  evidence  of  him- 
feJf,  as  unqucftionably  he  doth  in  the  fcriptures.  Nor  do  1 
doubt  but  multitudes  of  fober  perfons,  trained  up  within  the 
church,  and  thereby  drawn  to  a  more  attentive  and  Iefs  preju- 
dicial perufal  of  the  fcripture-revelatlon,  do,  upon  fuudry  occa- 
fions,  find  their  minds  aliecled  with  the  evidence  of  God  iri  them, 
and  thereby  are  drawn  to  affent  to  them  as  his  word,  though 
not  in  a  due  manner,  and  that  even  where  they  remain  ftran- 
gers  unto  a  work  of  renovation.  And  i  am  fure,  if  it  is  fo,  it 
will  leave  the  rejedlers  of  the  fcriptures  remarkably  without 
excufe. 

4.  Whether  fome  tranficnt  a6l  of  the  Spirit  of  Gcd  is  always 
neceiTary  upon  the  mind,  to  draw  forth  even  fuch  an  alTent,  zs 
that  lad  mentioned,  I  fliall  not  determine  ;  that  in  fome  cafes 
it  is  fo,  is  not  to  be  doubted.  The  faith  of  temporary  believers 
undoubtedly  requires  fuch  an  a£\ion  as  its  caufe,  and  where  any 
thing  of  this  evidence  affecls  the  minds  ofperfonsj  at  prefent 
d^eeply  prejudiced,  as  they  were,  who  were  fent  10  apprehend 
Chrifl,  and  went  away  under  a  conviction,  that  7itver  men 
[pake  as  he  {lid;  there  fuch  a  tranfient  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
feems  neceilary  to  clear  their  minds  of  prejudices,  and  make 
them  difcern  the  evidences  of  a  Deity  :  But  whether  it  is  fo  in 
other  cafes,  I  fhall  not  conclude  pofitively. 

5.  But  were  it  granted,  That  faith,  that  is,  the  faculty  or 
pov.'er  of  believing,  which  is  nothing  tVit  fave  the  mind  of  rrnn 
confidered  as  a  lubject  capable  of  affenting  to  tefiimony,  OiU 
remains;  and  that  though  wofully  impaired,  weakened  and  dif- 
abled,  it  yet  continues  in  {o  far  able  for  its  proper  ofHce  or 
work,  that  either  by  the  alTif^ance  of  fome  tranfient  operation  cf 
God's  Spirit,  breaking  in  feme  meafure  the  power  of  its  preju- 
dices, and  fixing  it  to  the  confideration  of  its  proper  objcdt,   or 

even 


404  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

even  without  this,  upon  a  more  fedate,  fober,  lefs  prejudiced 
obfervatlon,  it  may,  though  lefs  perfecliy,  perceive  the  imprefs 
and  evidences  of  God  appearing  in  the  revelations  he  makes  of 
liimfelf,  and  that  thereon  it  may  be  actually  io  afFefled,  as  to 
fjive  fonic  fort  of  aflent,  and  reach  fome  convi6lion,  that  it  is 
God  who  fpeaks :  Were,  I  fay,  all  this  granted,  it  will  amount 
to  no  great  matter ;  fmce  it  is  certain,  that  every  fort  of  faith 
or  afTent  to  divine  teRimony,  is  not  fufficient  to  anfwer  our  duty, 
obtain  acceptance  with  God,  and  turn  to  our  falvation.  Nor  is 
k  fo  much  of  our  concernment  to  inquire  after  that  fort  of  faith 
which  fails  of  anfwering  thefe  ends  ;  and  therefore  I  iliall  dip 
no  further  into  any  queftions  about  any  faith  of  this  fort,  or  our 
ability  for  it. 

6.  It  is  more  our  interefl  to  onderftand  what  that  faith  is, 
which  God  requires  us  to  give  to  his  zoord,  which  he  will  ac- 
cept of,  and  which  therefore  will  turn  to  our  falvation  ;  and 
whence  we  have  the  power  and  ability  for  this  faith.  Of  thefe 
things  therefore  we  fliall  difcourfe  at  more  length  in  the  next 
chapter  defigncd  to  that  end. 


C     II     A     P.       IL 

Wlinein  the  Nalure  of  that  Faithf  which  in  Duty  we  are  obliged 
io  give  to  the  Word  of  God,  our  ohiigation  to,  and  our  ability 
for  anfwaing  our  Duty,  are  inquired  into, 

WE  have  above  infinuated,  and  of  itfelf  it  is  plain,  that 
every  fort  of  faith  or  affent  to  divine  tcfiimony  anfvvers 
not  our  duty,  nor  will  amount  to  that  regard  which  we  owe  to 
the  authority  and  truth  of  God,  when  he  fpeaks,  or  writes  his 
mind  to  us.  We  muft  therefore,  in  the  firfl  place,  inquire  into 
the  nature  of  that  faith  which  will  do  fo.  Nor  is  there  any  other 
w^ay  wherein  this  may  better  be  cleared,  than  by  attending  to 
the  plain  fcripture  accounts  of  it. 

Nov/  if  we  look  into  the  fcriptures,  we  ^mA,  I.  The  apolile 
Paul,  I  TheiT.  ii^  13.  when  he  is  commending  the  TheiTalo- 
nians,  and  bleffing  God  on  their  behalf^  gives  a  clear  defcrip- 
tion  of  that  faith  which  is  due  unto  the  word  of  God.  For  this 
caufe  alfo,  fays  he,  thank  toe  God  without  ceafng,  hecaufe  when 
ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it 
not  as  the  word  of  men;  hut  (as  it  is  truth)  the  zuord  oj  God, 

which 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  405 


which  tffeBually  worketh  alfo  in  you  thai  hdieve.     If  we  advert 
to  this  def'cription,  we  cannot  but  lee  thefe  things  in   it,   Firfi ^ 
That  fonne  fpecial  fort  of  alTent  is  here  Intended.     The  Thef- 
iaionians  did  not  think  it   enough  to  give  fuch  credit,   or  yield 
fuch  an  aflent  as  is  due  to  the  word  of  men,  even   the  bcfi   of 
men.     Secondly^  In  particular  it  is  plain,  that  fuch  an  alTcnt  is 
intended  ^  fome  way   unfwcrs  the  unquefiionable  firmnefs  of 
the  teftimony  of  the  God  of  truth,  which  is  the  ground  wherepn 
it  leans.      Thirdly  t  It  is  obvious,  that  fomewhat  more  is  intend  - 
ed  than  a  mere  aflent,   of  whatfoever    fort   it  is  :  The  words 
plainly  import  fuch  an  aflent,  or  receiving  of  the  word  of  Gcdj 
as  is  attended  with  that  reverence,  fubmiflion  of  foul,  refignation 
of  will  and  fubje6\ion  of  confcience,  that  is  due  to  God,     Thh 
th.e  ufe  of  the  word  elfewhere  in  fcripture  firongly  pleads  for, 
and  the   manner  wherein  the  apoftle  exprefles  himfcif  Itere   13 
fufficient  to  convince  any  man  that  no  lefs  is  intended,      i,  Lels 
than  this   would   fcarce   have   been   a  ground    for   the  apoflle's 
thanhfgiving  to  God,  and  for  his  doing  fiiis  without  cea/in^. 
And  indeed  we  find  that  this  exprcflion  elfewhere  uied  iiTspoits 
not  only  people's  aflent  to,  but  their  confent   and    appicbaii*<  'i 
of  the  word   of  God;  yea,  and  their  embracing  in  practice   \\\ 
gofpel,  A6ls  viii.    14.  and  xi.   I.     2.  We  are  told  Heb.  >n*.  1, 
that  it  is  the  evidence  of  things  not  Jcen>     £aj7%<''^>  which    we 
render-  evidence,  fignifies  properly  a  convincing  de?nonjiration, 
Handing  firm    againfl,  and  repelling  the  force   of  contrary  cb- 
je£)ioriS.     Faith  then  is  fuch  an  aifent  as  this,  It  is  a  nrm   con- 
vi6iion  leaning  upon  the  ftrongeft  bottom,  able  to  fland  againO, 
and  wilhfland  the  flrongefi^  obje6tions.     3.  The  apoflle    more 
particularly  defcribes  the  ground  whereon  it  refls,  or  what  that 
demonftrative  evidence  is,  whereon  this  convit^ion  is  founded, 
and  that  both  negatively  and  pofitively,    i  Cor.  ii.  5.  It  (lands 
not  in  the  zoifdom    of  men,  but  in  the  pvwer  of  God.     That  is, 
it  neither  leans  upon  the  eloquence,  nor  reafonings;  of  men,  but 
upon  the  powerful  evidence  of  the  Spirit's  demonflration,  as  it 
is  in  the  verfe  before^ 

Having  given  this  (bort  and  plain  account  of  faiih  from  the 
fcripture,  we  maft  in  the  next  place  prove,  that  in  dutv  we 
are  bound  to  receive  the  word  of  God  with  a  failh  of  this  fort. 
Nor  will  this  be  found  a  matter  of  anv  difficulty  :   For, 

I,  The  fcriptures  hold  themfelves  forth  to  us  as  the  Oracles  cf 
God,  which  ^^/y  7nen  ojCyodfpah  as  they  were  vicxjedhy  the.  Spir:t 
of  God,  and  wrote  by  divine  infpiration,  and  the  Holy  Ghoji  is 

laid 


4o6  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

faid  to  [peak  to  us  by  tkem.  Now  the  very  light  of  natra'c  teaches 
us-,  that  whsn  God  utters  oracles,  fpsaksand  writes  his  mind  to 
us,  we  are  in  duty  bound  readily  to  aiTsnt,  give  entire  credit 
to,  and  rely  with  the  firmed  confidence  on  the  veracity  of  Vn^ 
fpeaker  ;  and  further,  we  are  obliged  to  attend  to  what  is  fpokca 
with  the  deepeft  veneration,  reverence  and  fubjed^ion  of  foul, 
and  yield  an  unreferved  pra6lical  compliance  with  every  inti- 
mation of  his  mind. 

2.  The  fcriptures  were  written  for  this  very  end,  That  zie 
?mgkt  /o  believe  them  as  to  have  life  by  them,  John  xx.  30.  31. 
And  again,  Rom.  xvi.  25,  26.  The  fcriptures  of  the  prophets 
according  to  the  commandment  of  the  tv&rlafling  God,  are  faid  to 
he  made  known  to  all  nations  Jor  the  obedience  of  faith-  Cer- 
tainly tken  we  are  in  duty  obliged  to  yield  this  obedience  of 
faith* 

3.  The  raofi:  <3readful  judgments,  5^ea  eternal  ruin,  and  t];at 
of  the  mofl  intolerable  fort,  are  threatened  againft  thofe,  who 
do  not  thus  receive  the  words  of  God  from  his  fervants,  v/hether 
by  word  or  writ,  is  no  a.atter.  W hofc ever  fiall  not  receive  you, 
nor  hear  your  zvords,  zohen  ye  depart  out  of  that  houfe  or  city, 
Jhake  off  the  du.fl  of  your  feet'  Verily  I  fay  unto  you,  It  fhall  be 
more  tolerable  Jor  the  land  of  Sodom  and  GomorroJi  than  for 
that  city,  Matt.  x.  14,  15.  Accordingly  we  find  the  apoftles 
preach  the  word  at  Aniioch  in  Fi/idia,  A(5\s  xiii.  demand  ac- 
ceptance of  it  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  upon  their  refu- 
fal,  they  teftify  againft  them  in  this  way  of  the  Lord's  appoint- 
ment, ver.  51.  And  all  this  feverity  they  ufed  without  otiering 
miracles,  or  any  other  proof  for  their  doolrine,  fo  far  as  we  can 
learn,  befides  the  authoritative  propofal  of  it  in  1\\q.  naaiC  oiGod, 

4.  We  find  the  apoftle*  in  the  words  above  quoted,  commend- 
ing the  Thefialonians  for  receiving  the  v/ord  in  this  manner, 
which  is  proof  enough,  that  it  was  their  duty  to  do  fo. 

Tills  much  being  clear,  it  remains  yet  to  be  inquired, 
Whence  we  have  power  or  ability  for  vieiding  fuch  an  alTent, 
whether  it  is  natural  or  fupernatural  ?  Now  if  we  confult  the 
fcripture  upon  this  head,  we  find, 

I.  That  this  ability  to  believe  and  receive  the  things  of  God 
to  our  falvatlon  and  his  glory,  is  exprefsiy  denied  to  uarcneu'ed 
man,  or  man  In  his  natural  eftate,  2  Thef.  iii.  2.  Allmen  have 
not  faith  :  i  Cor.  ii.  14.  The  natural  manreceiveth  not  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for  they  are  foolijlinefs  unto  him:  Neither 
can  he  know   them,  becaufe   they  arefpiniually  decerned,  John 

.     '         viii.  47 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  407 

vlii.  47 — Ye  therefore  hear  not  GocPs  words,  hecaufe  ys  are  not 
of  God. 

2.  This  is  exprefsl}'-  denied  to  be  of  ourfelves,  and  afferted  to 
be   a   fupernatural   gift  of  (}od,  Eph,   ii.  8-   By  grace  are  ye 
/aved  through Jaith;  and  thai  not  of  yourfdveSi  it  is  the  gift  of 
^God, 

3.  The  production  of  it  is  exprefsly  afcribed  unto  God.  He  it 
is  xhatfulfiis  in  his  people  the  work  of  faith  with  power ,  2  Thei. 
i.  II.  He  it  is  that  gives  them,  that  is,  thai  enables  them,  on 
the  behalf  of  Chrifi  to  helievt  and  faff -^r  f  or  his  name,  Phih  i.  29* 
It  is  one  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  Gal.  v.  22.  And  of  it 
Chriil  is  the  author,  rieb.  xii.  2.  The  further  proof  and  vin- 
dication of  this  truth  1  refer  to  polemical  writers. 

But  here  poffibly  fome  may  inquire,  How  it  can  be  our  duty 
thus  to  believe  the  fcriptures,  fmce  we  are  not  of  ourfelves  able 
to  do  fo?  In  anfwerto  this,  I  (liall  only  fay,  i.  The  very  ligiit 
of  nature  Ihews,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  yield  perfe6^  obedience, 
but  yet  certain  it  is  we  are  unable  to  anfwerto  our  duty.  2.  The 
fcriptures  plainly  require  us  \o  ferve  God  acceptably  with  reverence 
and  godly  fear,,  and  with  the  fame  breath  tells  us,  we  mu(i  have 
grace  to  enable  us  to  do  it,  Heb.  xii.  28.  3.  We  have  defiroy- 
tf^  ourfelves,  and  by  our  own  fault  impaired  the  powers  God 
originally  gave  us,  and  brought  ourfelves  under  innumerable 
prejudices  and  other  evils,  whereby  the  entrance  of  light  is  ob- 
ltru<51ed  :  But  this  cannot  re.ifonably  prejudge  God's  right  to 
demand  credit  to  his  word,  on  which  he  has  imprefi;  fufficient 
objective  evidence  of  himfelf,  which  any  one  that  has  not  thus 
faultily  loft  his  eyes,  may  upon  attention  difcern.  4.  It  is 
therefore  our  duty  to  juftify  God,  blame  ourfelves,  and  v/ait  in 
the  way  he  has  prefcribed,  for  ihat  grace  which  is  necedary  to 
enable  us  ;  and  if  thus  we  do  his  will,  or  at  ieaft  aim  at  it, 
we  have  no  reafon  to  defpair,  but  may  expect  in  due  time  to 
be  enabled  to  underftand  and  know,  whether  thefe  truths  are  of 
God,  or  they  who  fpoke  them  did  it  of  themfelves,  John  vii.  17, 
Though  yet  we  cannot  claim  this  as  what  is  our  due. 

From  what    has  hitherto  been  difcourfed,  it  is  evident,  that 

this  faith,  whereby  we  aflent  to  the  fcripture,  is    fupernatural, 

.  or  may  be  fo  called   upon  a  twofold   account  :    i.  Becaufe   the 

pov/er   or  ability    for  it,  is  fupernaturally  given  ;  and  2.  The 

evidence  v/hereon  it  rells  is  fupernatural. 

In  this  chapter,  we  have  diredlly  concerned  ourfelves  onlv  in 
the  proof  of  the  firfi  of  thefe,  viz.  That  our  ability  thus  to  be- 
lieve 


4o5  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

lieve  is  [apernatuYaUy  given  ;  and  this  has  been  tlie  conflant 
doitrine  of  tiie  church  of  God,  which  we  might  conium  by  tef- 
timoniesofall  forts,  did  our  defigned  brevity  allow*. 

But  our  modern  Rationaiills  do  refolutely  oppofe  this.  The 
author  of  a  late  atheitiical  parriphlet,  that  truly  fubverts  all  re- 
Jigicn,  ni:iy  be  allowed  to  fpeak  for  all  the  reft  ;  for  he  fays  no 
more  than  what  they  do  ^ffent  to  :  He  tells  us,  "  That  when 
**  once  the  myftery  of  Chrift  Jefus  was  revealed,  even  human 
**  reafon  was  able  to  behold  and  confefs  it;  not  that  grace  had 
**  altered  the  eye-fight  of  reafon,  but  that  it  had  drawn  the  ob- 
*'  jecl  nearer  to  it  f."  To  the  fame  purpofe  fpeak  the  Socini- 
ans  ;  Schlichtingius  tells  us,  *'  Man  endued  with  underftanding 
**  is  no  otherwife  blind  in  divine  myfteries,  than  as  he  who 
*'  hath  eyes,  but  fits  in  the  dark :  remove  the  darknefs,  and 
**  bring  him  a  light  and  he  will  fee.  The  eyes  of  a  man  are 
**  his  underftanding,  the  light  is  Chrift's  dot^rine."  To  the 
fame  purpofe  doth  the  paradoxical  Bdgick  Exercimtor,  that  fets 
up  for  phiiofophv  as  the  interpreter  of  the  fcripture,  exprefs 
himfelf  frequeritiy.  Nor  is  his  pretended  anfwerer  Volzogius 
diiierently  minded  ;  though  he  is  not  fo  conflant  to  his  opinion 
as  the  other  %* 

But  thefe  gentlemen  n-!ay  talk  as  they  pleafe,  we  are  not  o- 
bliged  to  believe  them  in  this  matter.  The  fcriptures  plainly 
teaching  us,  that  our  minds  are  blind,  our  underflandings  im- 
paired and  obfl:ru6led  in  difcerning  fhe  evidence  of  truth,  by 
prejudices  arifing  from  the  enmity  of  the  will,  and  depravity  of 
the  affections.  Nor  were  it  diflicult  to  demonfl rate  from  fcrip- 
ture, that  no  man  can  believe,  or  underfland  the  word  of  God 
aright,  till,  i.  The  Spirit  of  God  repair  this  ddzGi  of  the  facul- 
ty, or  gives  vs  an  under  ft  an  din  g^  i  John  v.  20»  2.  Break  the 
power  of  that  enmity  that  riles  up  againft  the  truths  of  God  as 
foollQinefs.  3.  Cure  the  diforder  of  our  aifedtions,  that  blinds 
our  minds.  And  4.  Fix  our  minds,  otherwife  vain  and  unlia- 
ble, to  attend  to  what  God  fpeaks,  and  th?  evidence  he   gives 

of 

*  See  Mr.  Wilfon's  Scripture*;:  oeiuuue  Interpreter  alTerted.  Ap- 
pendix, pag.  x^,  5.  clc. 

+  Treatife  on  Human  Reafon,  pag.  58.  publilhed  i674>  and  to  the 
credit  of  die  church  of  England,  with  an  Imprimatur,  quoted  by  Mr. 
Wilfun,  ubi  fupra,  pag.  13. 

J  Wilfon  ibid.  pag.  7.    ii» 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  409 

of  himfelf.  But  this  is  not  what  we  prirtcipaUy  defign,  and 
therefore  we  Hiall  inriH:  no  longer  upon  this  head  :  Our  prelent 
queftion  is  not  about  our  ability  or  power  to  believe,  but  the 
ground  whereon  we  do  believe.  What  has  been  fpoken  of  the 
former  hitherto,  is  only  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  confideration 
of  the  latter,  to  which  we  now  proceed. 


CHAP.      HI. 

The  Ground,  or  the  formal  Reafon,  whereon  Faith  afftnts  to  the 
Scriptures  is  inquired  after  ;  the  Rationalifl's  Opinion  about  it, 
and  particularly  as  Jiated  by  Mr,  Locke  in  his  Book  on  Hu- 
man Under/landing,  is  propojld  and  conjidered- 

THOUGH  we  have  fpoken  fomewhat  concerning  our  abil- 
ity to  believe  the  word  of  God,  and  the  fupernatural  rife 
thereof,  in  the  preceding  chapter;  wherein  we  have  offered  our 
thoughts  of  that  which  goes  under  the  name  oi fuhjetlive  light', 
yet  this  is  not  the  queftion  mainly  intended  in  thefe  papers. 
That  which  we  aim  more  particularly  to  inquire  after,  is  the 
ground  whereon  the  mind  thus  fubjcilively  enlightened,  or  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  difpofed,  fitted  and  enabled  to  difcern  and  af- 
fent  to  divine  revelations,  builds  its  affent,  and  wherein  it  rejis 
falisfied,  or  acquiefces. 

The  queftion  then  before  us  is  this,  What  is  that  .;grf?tt«// where- 
on, or  reafon  which  moves  and  determines  us  to  receive  ihejcrip' 
tures  as  the  zvord  of  God?  What  is  the  formal  reafon  whereon 
our  faith  refts  ?  or  what  is  the  proper  anfwer  to  that  quefiiort. 
Wherefore  do  ye  believe  the  fcriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God, 
^nd  receive  truths  therein  propofed  as  the  zvord  of  God,  and  net 
of  man  ? 

It  is  in  general  owned  by  all,  who  believe  the  fcriptures  to 
be  a  divine  revelation,  that  the  authority,  truth  and  veracity  of 
God,  who  is  truth  itfeif,  and  can  neither  deceive,  nor  be  de- 
ceived, is  the  ground  whereon  we  receive  and  affent  to  propcli- 
tions  of  truth  therein   revealed. 

But  this  general  anfwer  fatisfiesnot  the  queftion  :  For,  though 
it  is  of  natural  and  unqueftionable  evidence,  that  God's  tefti- 
mony  is  true,  cannot  but  be  fo,  and  as  fuch  muft  be  received; 
yet  certain  it  is,  that  divine  teftimony  abftra6\ly  confidered,  can- 
not be  the  ground  of  osr  affent  unto  any  truth  in  particular : 

E  e  e  But 


Alo  AX    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

But  that  whereon  we  mud  reil,  and  whereon  our  faith  muft 
Jean,  is,  **  The  teftiiTony  of  God  to  it,  evidencing  itfelf,  or  as 
**  it  gives  evidence  of  itfelf  unto  the  mind."  The  knot  of  the 
cjiiel^ion  then  lies  here,  *'  What  is  that  evidence  of  God's 
*'  fpeaking  or  giving  teftimony  to  truths  fupernaturaily  reveal- 
*•'  ed,  whereby  the  mind  is  fatisfied  that  God  is  the  revealer? 
**  Or  when  God  fneaks,  or  intimates  any  truth  to  us,  how,  or 
*'  in  what  way  doih  he  evidence  to  us,  that  he  is  the  revealer,' 
**  what  ground  is  it  whereon  we  are  fatisfied  as  to  this  precife 
*^  point  ?" 

Now  whereas  there  are  perfons  of  three  forts,  who  may  be 
called  to  affent  to  divine  revelations,  the  queftion  propofed  may 
be  confidered  with  refpedl  to  each  of  them. 

1.  The  queftion  may  be  moved  concerning  thofe  perfons  to 
whom  'he  fcripture  revelations  were  originally  made  ;  and  as  (o 
them  it  may  be  inquired,  When  God  did  reveal  his  mind  unto 
the  prophe*s,  wha^  was  th^ii  eviclencdf  what  were  thofe  rsz.'y.r^pia, 
ox  certain  ji^^aSy  whereby  they  were  infallibly  affured,  that  the 
propofitions  they  found  impreffed  upon  their  minds,  were  from 
God? 

2.  As  to  the  perfons  to  whom  they  did  immediately  reveal 
thefe  truths,  it  may  be  queftioned^  What  evidences  they  had  to 
move  them  to  affent,  and  ^w^jaith  to  thofe  truths  which  were 
propofed  to  them  as  divine  revelations?  On  what  ground  did 
they   refl    fatisfied,  that  really  they  were  fo? 

/^.  Whereas  we,  who  now  live,  neither  had  thefe  revelations 
made  to  us  originally ^  nor  heard  them  from  the  perfons  to  whom 
they  wer-e  io  given  ;  but  being  coraprifcd  and  put  together  in 
the  Bible,  they  are  offeied  to  us  as  a  divine  revelation y  and  v/e: 
are  in  duiy,  upon  pain  of  God's  difpleafure  in  cafe  of  refufal, 
called  and  required  to  believe,  and  ailent  to  whatever  is  therein 
T^\'c^\td,.  as  the  word  of  God  and  not  of  man -y  hereon  it  may 
be  moved,  What  is  that  evidence  which  this  booh  gives  of  itfelf, 
that  it  is  of  God,  whereon  our  minds  niay  reft  allured  that 
really  it  is  fo  ? 

As  to  this  queftion,  in  \o  far  as  it  concerns  the  firR:  fort  of 
perfons  mentioned,  wc  {hall  not  dip  m^uch  into  it  ,*  all  I  (hall 
i"ay  is  this,  in  the  words  of  the  judicious  and  learned  Dr.  Owen, 
*'  In  the  infpirations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  a6tings  on  the 
*'  minds  of  lioly  men  of  old,  he  gave  them  infallible  afiurancc 
**  that  it  was  himfelf  alone  by  whom  they  were  a6ied,  Jer. 
**   xiii,  2S.     If  any  fnali  afk  by  what  -vi-.i'^.-n'^ix  or  infallible   xo- 

**   kens 


5S 

ae- 


THE  REASON  OP^  TRUE  FAITH.  411 

^*  kens  they  might  know  affuredly  the  infpirations  of  tiie  Koly 
**  Spin  I,  and  be  fatlshed  with  fuch  a  periuafion  as  was  uoi  Jia- 
**  hie  to  i-nlftake,  that  they  were  not  inipofed  upon  ?  1  niuil  lay 
|;>a.niy,  That  I  cannot  tell;  for  thefe  are  things  Vv'hereof  we 
**   bd'e  no  experience*." 

t  --re  is  one  thing  dropt  as  to  this  Riatter  by  the  ingenio-j 
Mr  '.-^cke,  that  deferves  lome  animadvernon.  Though  he 
li'  -iOthing  pofuively  about  thofe  evidences  which  the  pro- 
p;  :iad,  yet  negatively  he  tells  us,  that  the  prophets' ailur- 
ar;c-  aid  not  at  leaii  folely  arife  from  the  revelations  theoifelves, 
.or.  rhe  operation  of  the  Spirit  impreffing  them  upon  their  minds, 
which  he  calls  the  internal  light  of  affurance :  But  that  befide 
this,  to  fatisfy  them  fully  that  thole  impreflions  were  from  God, 
external  figns  were  requifite  f;  and  this  he  endeavours  to  prove 
from  their  defiring  confirmatory  figns,  as  Abraham  and  others 
did;  and  from  God's  giving  ilich  figns  undefired.  To  this 
purpofe  his  appearance  to  Mofes  in  the  buOi,  is  by  our  author 
taken  notice  of.  As  to  the  opinion  itfelf,  I  look  on  it  as  hi^ily 
injurious  to  the  honour  of  divine  revelation,  and  I  take  the 
grounds  whereon  it  is  founded  to  be  weak  and  inconcludent : 
For,  I.  Mr,  Locke,  nor  any  for  him,  {Kail  never  be  able  to 
prove,  that  thele  divinely  infpired  perlbns  always  required  or 
got^  inch  confirmatory  figns  extrinfical  to  the  revelation  or  infpi- 
ration  itielf ;  yea,  it  is  manifeft,  that  for  mo^  part  ihey  neither 
fought  them  nor  got  them.  2.  When  they  did  feek  or  get  them, 
Mr.  Locke  cannot  prove,  that  either  God  or  they  found  them 
neccfl'ary  for  the  prefent  affurance  of  the  perfon's  own  minds;  as 
if  that  internal  light  of  affurance,  to  ufe  Mr.  Locke's  words, 
had  not  of  itfelf,  while  it  abode,  been  fuflkient  to  fatisfy  the 
mind  fully,  that  it  was  God  who  was  dealing  with  it,  or  reveal- 
ing himfelf  to  it.  It  is  plain,  that  oihsr  reaibns  of  tlieir  deiir- 
ingfuch  figns  maybe  affigned.  Vv'hen  the  matters  revealed 
were  things  at  a  diflance,  Vvhich  required  foms  ejaraordinary 
out-goings  of  God's  power  to  effe^uate  them,  in  that  cafe  they 
defired,  and  God  condelcended  to  grant  to  them  fome  extraor- 
dinary figns,  not  to  aflure  them  that  God  was  fpeaking  unto 
them,  but  to  (irengthen   their  convi^ions  of  the  fufficiencv  of 

God's 

*  Dr.  Owen  on  the  Spirit,  Book  2.  Chap,   i.  §,  10.  pag.   104. 

•'r  Human  Underllanding,  Eook  4.  Chap.   19.  §,   ij.  pag.   50?. 
Edition  5  th,  1706. 


412  AN    ESSAY  CONCERNING 

God's  power,  for  enabling  to  do  what  he  required  of  them,  if.it 
was  difficult,  or  accomplilhing  what  he  promifed  to  them  in  de- 
fiance of  the  greateft  oppofition.  Sometimes  divine  revelations 
were  prcmifes  of  things  at  a  diftance,  that  were  not  to  be  actu- 
ally accomplifhed  till  after  a  long  trad  of  time,  and  ever  nwny 
intervenient  obftru^^ions.;  in  this  cafe  they  were  obliged  to  be- 
lieve thefe  promifcs,  and  wait  in  the  faith  of  them,  even  when 
that  light,  that  firH;  allured  them,  was  gone,  and  fuch  evidences 
or  figns  might  be  of  ufe  to  enable  them  to  adhere  unto  the  aflent 
formerly  given  upon  that  fupernatural  evidence,  that  at  firft  ac- 
companied the  revelation.  Such  figns  then  might  be  of  ufe  to 
ftrengthen  the  remembrance  of  that  firft  evidence,  which  they 
had  when  the  revelations  were  firft  imparted  to  them.  Thefe  and 
other  reafons  of  a  like  nature  might  fufficiently  account  for  their 
defiring  thefe  figns,  and  God's  giving  them  :  But  as  has  been  faid, 
we  defign  not  a  determination  or  full  decifion  of  this  queflion* 
We  ihall  only  confider  the  queOion  with  refpe6\  unto  the  two 
1:^(1  fort  of  perfonso  And  as  to  thofe  who  heard,  or  had  divine 
revelations  immediately  from  infpired  perfons,  our  rational  di- 
vines feem  pofitive,  that  the  evidence  whereon  they  aiTented  to 
to  what  they  delivered  as  the  mind  of  God,  confifted  in,  or 
did  refult  from  the  miracles  they  wrought,  and  other  external 
ligns,  or  proofs,  which  they  gave  of  their  mifi^on  from  God. 
Monfieur  Le'  Clerk  in  his  Emendations  and  Additions  to 
Hammond  on  the  Nevv  Teftament,  gives  us  this  glofs  on  i  Cor# 
ii.  5.  *'  Paul,  fays  he,  would  have  the  Corinthians  believe  him, 
*'  not  as  a  philofopher  propofing  probabilities  to  them,  but  as 
*'  the  meircnger  of  God,  who  had  received  commandment  from 
**  him,  to  deliver  t®  them  thofe  truths  which  he  preached,  and, 
**  that  he  thus  received  them,  he  did  fhew  by  the  miracles 
**  which  he  wrought."  And  a  lit'.ie  after  he  adds,  **  He  whofe 
**  faith  leans  upon  miracles  wrought  by  God's  power,  his  faith 
**  is  grounded  upon  the  divine  power,  the  caufe  of  thefe  mira- 
*'  clcs."  As  to  this  opinion  itfeif,  I  ihall  exprcfs  myfelf  more 
particularly  juft  now  :  But  as  to  i:\ionfieur  Le'  Clerk's  inference 
from  this  text,  he  had  no  manner  of  ground  for  it.  Let  us  but 
look  into  the  verfe  befoie,  and  there  we  find  the  apoftle  telling 
the  Corinthians,  that  in  his  preaching  he  avoided  the  enticing 
words  oj  maris  wifdom^  and  delivered  his  melTage  in  the  de~ 
monftration  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  power.  Upon  the  back  of  this 
in  the  5th  verfe,  he  tells  them,  his  defign  in  doing  fo  was,  that 
ihxiv  faith  might  not  fiand  in  the  wifdom  oJ  men,  hut  in  the  power 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  413 

^/  God,  that  IS,  on  the  powerful  demonftration  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verfe.  How  Monfieur  Le' 
Clark  came  to  dream  of  miracles,  and  fetch  them  in  here,  whiJe 
the  fcope  and  every  circumftance  of  the  text  flood  in  the  way 
of  this  exi>ofition,  I  cannot  divine  ;  for  nothing  is  more  foreign 
and  remote  from  the  fenfe  of  this  place.  If  the  author  had  fol- 
lowed the  old  approved  interpreter  of  fcripture,  I  mean  the 
icripture  itfelf,  and  had  looked  into  the  foregoing  verfe  and 
context,  he  had  given  us  a  more  genuine  account :  But  philofo- 
phy  now  fet  up  for  an  interpreter,  I  had  almoft  laid  a  perverter, 
did  certainly  lead  him  into  this  violent  and  ridiculous  glofs. 
But  to  come  to  the  matter  itfelf. 

Miracles  can  be  no  otherwife  the  ground  of  any  alTent,  than 
as  th,ey  afford  ground  for,  or  may  be  made  ufe  of  as  the  medi- 
um of  an  argument,  whereby  the  divine  million  of  the  workei: 
is  concluded  and  proven.  This  then  mud  be  the  opinion  of 
thefe  gentlemen,  That  they  who  heard  the  apoftles  or  pro- 
phets, could  not  be  fatisfied  in  their  minds,  that  what  they 
faid  was  divinely  revealed,  until  they  were  convinced  of  it  by 
proofs  drawn  from  miracles  or  figns,  wrought  by  the  preacher; 
and  that  this  is  not  merely  my  conjecture,  is  evident  from  the 
accounts  we  have  of  their  opinions  and  hypothefis,  whereof 
this  is  reckoned  as  a  principal  one,  that  the  mind  of  man  be- 
ing rational,  cannot  be  moved  but  by  a  rational  imprefiTion, 
that  is,  by  the  force  of  efFeaual  reafons*.  And  to  the  fame 
purpofe  we  fhall  find  Mr.  Locke  expreffing  himfelf  by  and  by. 

Upon  this  hypothefis,  it  is  evident,  i.  That  if  a  Heathen 
came  into  a  Chriftian  affembly,  and  heard  Paul  preaching,  or 
even  Jefus  Chrift  himfelf,  if  he  had  never  feen  them  work 
any  fign  or  miracle,  he  would  not  be  obliged  to  believe  their 
dodrine.  2.  If  the  apoflles  preached  to  thofe  among  whom 
they  wrought  no  miracles,  gave  no  fuch  outward  figns,  fuch 
perfons  could  not  be  obliged  to  believe  them,  the  evidence 
whereon  fuch  a  belief  is  founded  being  denied.  3.  They  who 
heard  them,  and  faw  the  miracles,  could  not  be  obliged  to  af-  . 
fent  unto  their  dodrine,  until  by  reafoning  they  would  have 
time  to  fatisfy  themfelves,  how  far  natural  caufes  might  go  to- 
wards the  produaion  of  fuch  effeas,  and  how  far  thefe  things, 
admitting  them  to  be  fupernatural,  could  go  toward  the  proof 
of  this,— that  what  they  delivered  was  from  God.     4.  If  there 

was 
'  '^  Spanhem,  Elench.  Controverfiarum  pag.  320.  Edition  1694. 


414  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING  , 

was  any  among  them  To  dull,  as  not  to  be  capable  to  judge  of 
theTe  nice  points,  I  do  not  fee  how,  upon  thefe  principles, 
they  could  be  obliged  to  believe.  Thefe  and  the  like  are  no 
drained  confequcnces  ;  for  it  is  undeniable,  that  our  obligation 
to  believe  arifes  from  the  ptopofa!  of  due  objective  evidence  ; 
if  this  is  wanting  no  man  can  be  obliged  to  believe. 

As  to  us  who  neither  converfed  with  the  infpired  perfons, 
to  whom  fuch  revelations  were  originally  given,  nor  faw  the 
miracles  they  wrought,  we  are  told  b)^  thofe  Rational iOs,  That 
we  have  hijlorical  proof ,  that  there  were  fuch  perlons,  that  they 
wrote  thefe  revelations  which  we  now  have,  and  that  they 
v/rought  fuch  miracles  in  confirmation  of  their  mifiion  and  doc- 
trine ;  and  upon  the  evidence  of  ihefe  proofs  we  muft  reft,  they 
will  allow  us  no  other  bottom  for  our  faith.  Hence  Monfieur  Le' 
Clerk  tells  us,  *'  That  whatever  faith  is  this  day  in  the  world 
^'  among  Chriitians,  depends  upon  the  teftimony  of  men." 

Among  many  who  have  embraced  this  opinion,  Mr.  Locke 
in  his  Effay  on  Hiunan  Underjlanding,  has  delivered  himfelf^to 
this  purpofe,  and  upon  feveral  accounts  he  deferves  to  be  ta- 
ken fpecial  notice  of:  1  fliall  therefore  reprefent  faithfully 
and  fliortlv  his  opinion,  and  the  grounds  ^vhereon  it  is  founded, 
and  make  fuch  animadverfions  upon  them,  as  may  be  necef- 
i'ary  for  clearing  our  way.  His  opinion  you  may  take  in  the 
enfuing  propofitions. 

1.  When  he  is  fpeaking  of  the  diHerent  grounds  of  aiTent, 
snd  degrees  thereof,  he  fays,  "  Beftdes  thofe  we  have  hitherto 
**  mentioned,  there  is  one  fort  of  propofitions  that  challenge 
**  the  higheft  degrees  of  our  afl'ent  upon  bare  tcftimony,  whe^ 
*^  ther  the  thing  propofed  agree  or  dlfagree  with  common  ex- 
**'  perience  and  the  ordinary  courfe  of  things,  or  not.  The 
*'  reafon  whereof  is,  becaufe  the  teRimony  is  of  fuch  an  one, 
*'  as  cannot  deceive  or  be  deceived,  and  that  is  of  God  himfelf, 
"  This  carries  with  it  alfurance  beyond  doubt,  evidence  be- 
**  yond  exception.  This  is  called  by  a  peculiar  name,  revela* 
**  tion^  and  our  aiTent  to  it^  faith:  Which  as  abfolutely  deter- 
*■  mines  our  minds,  and  as  perfeftly  excludes  all  wavering  as 
^*   our  knowledp;e  itfeif  *." 

2.  But  notwithflanding,  he  tells  us  in  the  very  fame  para- 
graph, **  Tliat  our  aflurance  of  truths  upon  this  teilimony,"  or 
to  give  his  own  words,  **  Our  aiTent  can  be  rationally  no  high- 

*'  er 
^  liu.iian  Ur.deriland.  Book  4,  Cap,  18.  §.  14.  pag.  5^4'  5^5* 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  4!^ 

**  er  than  the  evidence  of  its  being  a  revelation,  and  that  this 
**  is  the  meaning  of  the  exprefiions  it  is  delivered  in."  That 
is,  as  he  himfelf  explains  it,  *'  If  the  reafons  proving  it  to  be  a 
**  revelation  are  but  probable,  our  allVirance  amounts  but  unio  a 
**   probable  conje6ture." 

3.  He  diftinguiihes  betwixt  traditional  and  original  revela- 
tion. By  the  latt  of  thefe,  fays  he,  "  I  nr.ean  that  fir(\  imprci- 
**  fion  which  is  made  immediately  by  God  on  the  mind  of  any 
"  man,  to  which  we  cannot  fet  any  bounds  ;  and  by  the  other, 
*'  thofe  impreflions  delivered  over  to  others  in  words,  and  the 
**  ordinary  w^ays  of  conveying  our  conceptions  one  to  another*." 
And  afterwards  fpeaking  of  immediate  or  original  revtlaiion,  he 
tells  us,  **  That  no  evidence  of  our  faculties  by  which  we  re- 
*'  ceive  fuch  revelations,  can  exceed,  if  equal,  the  certainty 
"  of  our  intuitive  knowledge  f."  And  in  the  preceeding  para- 
graph, fpeaking  of  traditio.nal  revelation,  he  tells  us,  "  That 
**  whatfoever  truth  we  come  to  the  clear  difcovery  of,  from  the 
^*  the  knowledge  and  contemplation  of  our  own  ideas,  will  al- 
*'  ways  be  certainer  to  us,  than  thofe^  which  are  conveyed  by 
'*   traditional  revelation:]:." 

4.  He  tells  us,  *'  That  true  light  in  the  mind  can  be  no 
^'  other  but  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  any  propofilion,"  and 
hereon  he  proceeds  to  tell  us,  **  That  there  can  be  no  otlier  c- 
"  videnre  or  light  in  the  mind,  about  propofitions  that  are  not 
''  felf-evident,  fave  what  arifes  from  the  ciearnels  and  validity 
*'  of  thofe  proofs  upon  which  it  is  received:"  And  he  adds, 
''  That  to  talk  of  any  other  light  is  to  put  ourfcives  in  the  dark, 
**  or  in  the  power  of  the  prince  of  darknefs  1|.^ 

5.  In  the  next  paragraph  he  tells  us  plainly,  That  there  is 
no  way  of  knowing  any  revelation  to  be  fiom  God,  but  by 
*'  rational  proofs :  or  fome  marks  in  which  rcafon  cannot  be 
**   miftaken  **." 

6.  In  this  next  paragraph  he  tells  what  before  we  have  ta- 
ken notice  of.  That  the  internal  light  of  alTurance  which  the 
prophets  had,  was  not  fufficient  to  tcftify,  that  the  truths  im- 
prelTed  on  their  minds  were  from  God,   without  other  figns  ft- 

Thus  far  of  Mr.  Locke's  opinion,  which  in  fum  amounts  to 
this,  "  That  that  even  the  original  revelations,  had  not  in  thei-c, 

intrinhck 
*  Hurr.an  Underhand.  Book  4.  Cap.    18,  §.   3.  pag.  582. 
+  Ibid.  §.  5.  pag.  583.  •    :  ibid.  Eook  4.  Cap.   18.  §.,4.  pag.  5S2. 
!|  Ibid.  Book  4.  Cap.  19.  L  13.      ^'^  Ibid.  §.   14.      +i  Ibid.  §.  ij. 


4i6  AN   ESSAY    CONCERNlxNG 

intrlnfick  evidence,  fufficlent  to  affure  them  on  whom  fuch  im- 
preflions  were  made,  that  they  were  from  God  ;  that  other  fisjns 
were  neceflary  to  fatisfy  them  ;  and  that  others  who  received 
fuch  revelations  at  fecond  hand,  not  from  God  immediately,  but 
from  infpired  perfons,  have  no  other  evidence  to  ground  their 
affent  on,  behdes  that  which  refuhs  from  arc^uments  drawn 
from  thofe  figns,  whereby  they  did  confirm  their  miffion  ;  and 
that  we  have  no  evidence  who  fav/  not  thefe  figns,  befides  that 
of  the  hiftorical  proofs,  whereby  it  is  made  out,  that  the  per- 
fons who  wrote  the  traditional  revelations  we  have,  wrought  fuch 
iigns  in  confirmation  of  their  miffion  from  God." 

It  is  worth  our  while  to  c^well  a  little  here,  and  more  nar- 
rowly confider  Mr.  Locke's  thoughts,  and  the  grounds  of  his 
opinion  ,♦  I  (liall  therefore  offer  a  few  obfervations  on  this  doc- 
trine. 

1.  Mr.  Locke  in  his  firfl  propofition,  fpeaks  very  honour- 
ably of  divine  faith.  As  to  the  alTent  or  a6l  of  faith,  he  fays, 
**  That  it  is  an  affent  of  the  hii]^heft  degree  ;  affurance  without 
*'  doubt."  As  to  the  ground  of  it,  he  fays,  *'  That  it  is  fuch 
"  as  challenges  an  afTent  of  the  higheft  degree;"  that  it  is 
-'  evidence  beyond  exception."  Thefe  are  goodly  words.  He 
Jiasjpoken  welt  in  all  that  he  has  J  aid,  Lwlfl:i  that  his  mean- 
ing and  heart  may  be  found  as  good  as  his  words.  All  is  not 
gold  that  glifcerS'  Let  us  then  look  a  little  more  narrowly  in- 
to his  meaning. 

To  find  it  out,  we  foall  fuppofe  that  God,  as  no  doubt  he 
did,  does  reveal  immediately  to  Paul  this  propofition,  Jefus  is 
the  Son  of  God,  Here  is  a  revelation  :  by  Paul  it  is  aflented 
10.  Weil  here  is  faith.  Now  in  his  believing  this  propofition, 
he  may  be  faid  to  afl'ent  to  three  things, — That  what  God  fays 
is  true,— That  Jefus  is  the  Son  of  God, — and,  That  God  fays 
this  to  Paul. 

Now,  I  afk  Mr.  Locke,  or  any  of  our  Rationalifts  that  arc 
of  his  mind.  To  which  of  thefe  three  is  it  that  Paul  aflents, 
with  an  aiTent  "  of  the  higheft  degree,"  and  of  which  he  has 
"  evidence  beyond  exception?'' 

i.  Could  Mr.  Locke  only  mean,  that  we  have  the  higheft 
affurance  of  this  general  verity.  That  God's  ttjli many  is  injalli' 
libly  trucY  No  fure.  For  the  afient  to  this  truth  is  not  an  ait 
of  faith,  but  of  intuitive  knowledge.  The  truth  itfelf  is  not  a 
truth  here  divinely  revealed,  but  of  natural  evidence.     This  is 

not 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  417 

not  Co  much  in  this  inftance  exprefsly  aiTented  to,  as  fuppofed 
known. 

2.  Doth  Mr»  Locke  mean,  that  we  afient  to  this  proportion. 
That  Jefus  is  the  Son  of  God?  Had  Paul  **  afTurance  beyond 
doubt,"  and  **  evidence  be3'ond  exception,"  of  this?  But  fure- 
ly  Mr,  Locke  knew  that  Paul,  on  this  fuppofuion,  does  not 
at  all  afient  to  the  propofition,  Jefus  is  the  Son  of  God  ahfo- 
lutely,  but  as  it  is  revealed.  Well  then,  all  the  evidence  that 
Paul  has  to  ground  Isis  afient  upon,  is  the  evidence  of  this. 
That  God  fays  Jo  to  him.  If  then  the  evidence  of  God's  fay- 
ing fo  to  him  is  not  fuch  as  "  challenges  an  afient  of  the  high- 
eft  degree,"  Paul  cannot  have  the  **  higheft  degree  of  afiur- 
ance"  of  that  propofition,  the  faith  whereof  leans  entirely  up- 
on his  afi'urance  of  this.  That  God  has  revealed  it*  For  as 
Mr,  Locke  fays  very  truly  in  that  fame  paragraph,  "  Our 
*'  afl'urance  of  any  particular  truth,*that  is,  the  matter  revealed, 
**  can  never  rife  higher  in  degree  than  our  alTurar^ce  of  this, 
*'  that  it  is  revealed."  If  then  Paul  has  not  **  evidence  beyond 
exception,"  tliat  God  reveals  the  propofition  we  fpeak  of  to 
him,  he  can  never  have  fuch  afiurance  of  the  truth  of  the  pro- 
pofition materially  confidered.     Wherefore, 

3.  Did  Mr.  Locke  think  in  this  cafe,  that  Paul  would 
have  evidence  beyond  exception,  challenging  the  higheft  de- 
gree of  afient,  and  thereon  afl*urance  beyond  doubt,  or  of  the 
highefi  degree,  of  this^  that  God  did  in  very  deed  lay  to  Paul, 
That  Jefus  is  the  Son  of  God;  or  of  this  truth,  That  Jf us  is 
the  Son  of  God  as  revealed.  It  is  the  afl'ent  to  this  propofition 
that  in  proper  fpeaking  is  faith.  The  afient  to  the  general 
propofition  above-mentioned,  is  not  an  a6l  of  faith  ai  all.  Nor 
is  the  aiTent  to  the  propofition  revealed,  materially  confidered, 
an  a6\  of  faith.  Faith  in  this  cafe,  is  only  the  afient  to  that 
propofition  as  revealedt  or  to  the  revelation  of  it.  If  then, 
Paul  has  not  the  higheft  evidence  for,  and  thereon  the  high- 
efi afi"urance  of  this,  That  God  fays  this  to  him,  his  faith  can 
never  be  faid  to  be  the  higheft  degree  of  afiurance  or  airenr. 
This  then  Mr.  Locke  muft  mean,  or  he  meaos  nothing.  But 
yet  I  fuppofe  he  fcarce  thought  fo :  For,  i.  He  tells  us  after- 
wards, that  we  can  have  no  evidence  for  receiving  any  truth 
revealed,  that  can  exceed,  if  equal,  the  evidence  we  have  for 
our  intuitive  knowledge.  If  we  have  not  then  evidence,  equal 
•at  leafi  to  that  which  we  have  for  our  intuitive  knowiedfie,  for 
our  belief  of  God's  being  the  revealer,  or  that  he  fpeaUs  to  us, 

F  f  f  we 


4i8  AN   ESSAY   CONCERNING 

we  cannot  have  ihe  liigbefl  degree  of  alTurance.  2.  He  after- 
wards teiis  us,  that  we  have  no  evidence  for  this,  that  this  or  that 
truth  is  revealed  to  us  by  God,  but  that  which  refuhs  from  rea- 
fons  or  arguments,  drawn  from  marks,  whereby  we  prove  that 
God  is  the  fpeaker:  but  Mr.  Locke  owns,  that  the  evidence  of 
«ll  our  reafcnings,  is  ftiil  fhort  of  that  which  we  have  for  our 
intuitive  knowledge.  Now  methinks  this  quite  overthrows 
Mr.  Locke's  goodly  conceffion.  With  what  confifiency  with 
truth  or  himfeif,  Mr.  Locke  wrote  at  this  rate,  is  left  to  others 
to  judge. 

n.  Whatever  there  is  in  this  conceffion  yielded  in  favour  of 
faith,  Mr.  Locke  afterwards  takes  care  that  we  who  now  live 
ihali  not  be  the  better  for  it :  For  afterwards  he  telis  us  plainly, 
**  That  whatfoever  truth  we  come  to  the  clear  difcovery  of, 
**  from  the  knowledge  and  contemplation  of  our  ideas,  will  al- 
•**  ways  be  certainer  to  us,  than  thofe  which  are  conveyed  by 
**  traditional  revelation."  We  have  no  revelation  at  this  day, 
but  that  which  Mr.  Locke  calls  traditional.  And  here  it  is 
plain,  that  iVlr.  Locke  thinks  that  our  certainty  of  any  truth  we 
have  from  this^  is  inferior  in  degree  to  any  fort  of  natural  know- 
ledge, whether  intuitive,  rational  or  fenfible. 

ilL  It  is  manifell,  that  the  foundation  of  all  is^what  Mr.  Loc^e 
teaches  in  the  fourth  pofiiion  above-mentioned;  wherein  he  telJs 
us,  *'  That  to  talk  of  any  other  light  in  the  mind,  befide  that  of 
**  felf-evidcnce,  reafon,  aad  fenfe,  is  to  put  ourfeives  in  the 
''  dark."  i  have  added  this  laft,  **  the  light  of  fenfe,"  bccaufe 
Mr.  Locke,  though  he  meniions  it  not  here,  yet  elfewhere  he 
admits  it.  That  we  may  undeiftand  Mr,  Locke's  allertion  ex- 
aCxly,  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  writers,  when  they  treat  of  this 
lubjccl,  ufually  take  notice  of  a  twofold  light.  There  is  Jub- 
j^Bive  lights  by  which  is  meant  either  our  ability  to  perceive, 
difcern,  know  and  judge  of  objc61s,  or  our  a(5\ual  knowledge, 
afl'ent,  &c.  Again  there  is  ohjtBive  light,  by  which  they  mean 
that  evidence  whence  our  knowledge  refults,  whereon  it  is 
founded,  and  which  determines  the  mind  to  aflcnt  or  diflent. 
Now  it  is  of  this  laft  that  Mr.  Locke  is  treating  in  his  chapter 
of  EnthufiaJMf  from  whence  tins  propofition  is  taken.  And  his 
opinion  is  this.  That  there  is  a  threefold  objedive  light,  which 
is  a  real  and  juft  ground  for  the  mind  to  afient  on.  There  is, 
fi'^IK  /-{f-emdence^  which  is  the  ground  of  our  intuitive  know* 
ledge,  refulting  from  the  obvious  agreement  or  difagreement  of 
our   ideas,  appearing  upon  firft   view  or  intuition,  v/hen   they 

aie 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITFL  419 

ate  compared.  5^^^;7^/y, There  is  rational  light,  or  the  evidence 
rcluhing  from  arguments,  wherein  the  agreement  or  difagree- 
ment  of  our  ideas  is  cleared  by  affuming  intermediate  ideas,  by 
the  help  of  which  our  mind  is  cleared,  as  to  what  judgment  it 
is  to  pafs.  Thirdly,  There  is  the  light  of  Jenjt,  or  the  evidence 
refultiiag  from  imprelTions  made  on  our  minds  by  the  interven- 
tion and  means  of  our  organs  of  fenfe. 

But  befides  thefe,  he  admits  of  no  other  objective  light  or  evi- 
dence, that  may  be  a  juft  ground  of  affent;  and  adds,  "  That 
**  to  talk  of  any  other,  is  to  put  ourfelves  in  the  dark;  yea,  in 
♦*  the  power  of  the  prince  of  darknefs,  and  turn  enthufiafls.'' 

This  grape  muft  be  preffed,  that  we  may  tafte  its  juice,  how 
it  relifhes.  In  the  confideratlon  of  this  docbine  delivered  by 
Mr.  Locke,  we  fhall  not  at  prefent  inquire  whether  it  really  does 
not  preclude  all  place  for  faith,  properly  fo  called.  This  in 
the  iffue  will  be  further  cleared. 

But  whatever  there  is  as  to  this,  if  Mr.  Locke's  do6lrine 
hold,  certain  it  is,  that  either  fairh,  if  there  is  fuch  a  thing, 
mull:  be  founded  on  one  of  thofe  three  grounds  of  allent,  or  forts 
of  objective  light,  or  it  is  altogether  irrational.  For  an  afl'ent 
not  founded  on,  and  to  which  we  are  not  determined  by  real 
objective  evidence,  is  brutifh,  irrational,  and  really  enthufiaflick, 
as  being  no  reafon  or  ground  :  And  befides  thefe  three  foits  of 
grounds,  Mr.  Locke  admits  of  none.  Faith  therefore  muft  be 
founded  either  on  one  or  other  of  them,  or  it  mufl  want  all  rea- 
fon for  it. 

Further,  it  is  to  be  obferved,  That  Mr.  Locke's  taking  ^^Vx- 
evidence  for  that  which  is  immediately  perceptible  without  the 
intervention  of  any  intermediate  ideas,  by  the  natural  power  of 
our  intellectual  faculties,  not  affifled,  renewed,  elev?.ted  and  in- 
fluenced by  any  fupernatural  influence;  and  taking  fenfible 
evidence  for  that  v/hich  is  conveyed  by  the  intervention  of  bo- 
dily organs,  from  corporeal  fubflances,  cannot  be  thought  to 
make  either  of  thefe  the  ground  of  faith  to  the  tefiimony  of 
God.  And  therefore  it  muft  have  no  reafon  fave  that  rational 
evidence,  which  makes  the  middle  fort  of  objective  light.  But 
1  need  not  fpend  time  in  proving  this,  fince  it  is  no  more  than 
what  he  has  taught  us  in  the  fifth   propornion  above-mentioned. 

This  opinion  thus  far  explained  is  indeed  the  fum,  and  contains 
the   force  of  what  is  pleaded,  or,  for   ought   I    know,  can    be 
pleaded  for  the  judgment  of  our  Ratlonalifts,     We  (hall   there- 
fore 


420  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

fore  weigh  the  matter  more  feriouily,  and  proceed  by  fotr.e  plain 
fieps  in  the  enfuing  propofitions. 

I.  **  If  good  and  folid  reafons  can  be  produced  for  proof  of. 
*'  another  fort  of  obje6live  light  or  evidence,  befides  thofe  three 
*'  mentioned  bv  Mr.  Locke,  it  mud  be  admitted,  though  we 
**  (hould  not  be  able  to  give  a  fatisfying  account  of  its  nature, 
**  and  other  concernments." 

(i.)  This  I  believe  was  never  denied  in  the  general  as  toother 
things,  by  any  perfon  of  judgment,  adverting  to,  and  under- 
flanding  what  he  faid,  and  why  it  then  ihould  be  refufed  in  this 
cafe,  I  can  fee  no  ground. 

(2.)  If  any  has  ever  in  general  denied  this  in  words,  I  am 
fure  every  man  in  facl  admits  it.  Who  is  he  that  receives  not 
many  truths,  that  admits  not  the  being  of  many  things,  upon 
good  proof,  from  their  caufes,  eife6is,  infeparable  adjun6^s,  &c. 
of  the  nature  of  v.-hich  he  can  give  no  fatisfying  account  ?  We 
ail  own  the  mutual  influence  of  our  fouls  and  bodies  upon  one 
another,  upon  the  proofs  we  have  from  the  effects :  But  who- 
ever underi"iood  the  manner,  how  the  foul  operates  on  the  bo- 
dy, or  the  body  upon  it  ?  Inftances  of  this  fort  are  innumerable, 

{3.)  Suihcient  proofs  mufi;  always  determine  our  affent;  and 
if  there  are  fuch  in  this  cafe,  it  is  unreafonable  to  refufe  it. 

(4.)  If  we  have  fufficient  reafons  to  convince  us,  that  there 
is  a  fourth  fort  of  objedVive  light  diftin6f  from  thofe  three  ad- 
mitted by  Mr.  Locke,  and  only  deny  it  becaufe  we  underftand 
not,  or  cannot  give  a  clear  account  of  its  nature,  I  cannot  tell, 
but  on  this  fame  ground  we  fnall  rejet^,  and  be  obliged  to  refufe 
thefe  three  forts  admitted  by  him,  for  the  very  fame  reafon. 
Mr.  Locke  perhaps  has  done  as  much  as  any  man  to  explain 
them  :  but  were  he  alive,  I  believe  he  vvtould  be  as  ready  to 
own  as  any,  that  he  has  been  far  from  fatisfying  himfelf,  or 
offering  what  ma^v^  fully  clear  others  as  to  the  nature  of  thefe 
things,Wherein  evidence  confifi^  ?  What  it  is?  What  is  felf-evi- 
dence,  or  that  evidence  which  is  the  ground  of  wjr  fenfible  or 
rational  knowledge?  Mow  they  operate  and  influenc^vthe  affcns? 
All  his  accounts  are  only  defcriptions  taken  from  caufes,  ef- 
fects or  the  like.  But  what  obje£tive  light  or  evidence  is,  where- 
in it  really  conhfts,  (and  the  like  may  be  faid  of  the  reR)  15 
as  much  a  myfteiy  as  it  was  before,  when  he  tcils  us, That  felf- 
evidence  fcX'  gr*J  is  that  which  is  immediately  perceived  with- 
out the  intervention  of  intermediate  ideas.  Here  I  learn,  that 
it    is  not   rational    evidcrxe,    that   requires   fuch    intermediate 

ideas, 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  421 

ideas.  But  this  is  all  I  can  learn,  unlefs  it  be,  that  it  is  per- 
ceptibie  by  the  mind,  that  is,  it  is  evidence.  But  what  evi- 
dence is,  I  am  yet  to  learn.      1  think  this  propofitlon   is  plain, 

2.  **  A  fourth  fort  of  objective  evidence,  different  from  thofe 
**  three  affigned  by  Mr.  Locke,  is  not  impoffible." 

(i.)  If  any  fay  it  is,  it  lies  upon  him  to  prove  it.  That 
Mr.  Locke,  or  millions  more,  obferved  no  fuch  light  in  their 
minds,  found  ihemfelves  determined  to  affent  by  no  other  ob- 
jective evidence  or  light,  will  not  prove  it  impollible  ;  yea  will 
not  prove,  that  a6lually  there  is  no  fach  light ;  nay,  will  not 
prove,  that  there  was  no  fuch  light  in  their  own  minds.  For 
Mr.  Locke,  though  he  observed  as  accurately  the  manner  of 
his  mind,  its  actings,  as  mod  men,  yet  might  not  obferve  it  fo, 
but  that  he  poffibly  overlooked  fomewhat  that  pafled  there.  And 
if  really  Mr.  Locke  did  not  affent  upon  other  evidence  to  fome 
things,  though  he  obferved  it  not,  I  doubt  not  but  by  this  time 
he  is  fenfible  it  was  his  lofs  that  it  was  fo.  It  cannot  be  pre- 
tended, that  it  is  impoffible  for  want  of  a  fufficient  caufe, 
virhile  that  God  is  In  being,  who  is  author  of  the  three  forts  of 
lights,  that  are  admitted,  and  who  is  the  Father  of  lights.  Nor 
can  it  be  pretended,  that  the  members  of  this  divilion  fland 
contradid^torily  oppofed  to  one  another,  as  it  is  in  this,  Every 
being  is  dependent  or  independent. 

(2.)  If  any  w^ill  fay  yet,  It  is  impoffible  there  (houldbe  a  fourth 
or  a  fifth  fort  of  light  or  objective  evidence,  1  fhall  defire  him 
only  to  ftay  a  while,  and  confider  the  light  of  fenfe*  It  is  no- 
thing elfe  fave  **  that  evidence  that  refults  from  impreffions 
**  made  on  our  minds  by  means  of  our  organs  of  fenfe."  Well, 
hereon  I  fhall  afk  two  queflions, 

Firjlf  Is  it  not  poffible  for  him  who  made  thofe  conveyances 
or  organs  of  fenfe,  to  frame  more  fuch,  quite  different  from  thofe 
We  already  have,  and  by  means  of  them  impart  to  us  other  pre- 
ceptions,  and  determine  as  to  affent  on  the  evidence  of  the  im- 
preffions conveyed  to  our  minds  by  thefe  other  fenfes?  If  it  is 
pofiible,  as  I  fee  not  how  rationally  it  can  be  queftioned,  here 
is  at  ieafl  a  fourth  fort  of  objedive  light  determining  our  minds 
to  affent,  admitted  as  pojjible. 

Secondly^  Here  I  would  inquire.  Whether  may  not  He,  who, 
by  thefe  bodily  organs  we  already  have,  impreffes  ideas  upon 
our  minds,  and  determines  our  affent  to  their  agreement  or  dif- 
agreement,  immediatdy  icithout  the  intervention  of  fuch  organs, 
iTiake  impreffions  on  our  minds,  whereby  our  affent  or  judg- 
ment 


422  AN   ESSAY   CONCERNING 

mcnt  may  rationally  be  fwayed  ?  To  deny  this,  will  look  very 
odd  und  irrational  to  ibber  men,  that  have  due  thoughts  of  God. 
If  it  is  admitted,  we  have  here  at  leaft  the  pojjibility  of  another 
ground  of  aiTent,or  objedive  light,  acknowledged,  different  from 
thofe  condefcended  on  by  Mr.   Locke. 

(3.)  We  that  have  the  benefit  of  fight,  have  in  our  minds  a  fort 
of  objective  evidence  or  light,  different  from  all  thofe  which  are 
born  blind  have.  And  why  fhould  it  be  then  thought  impoffi- 
ble  that  others  may  have  in  their  minds  an  evidence  that  we  have 
no  experience  of,  and  that  it  may  be  equally  real,  convincing, 
er  more  fo  than  any  that  we  have. 

(4.)  Mr.  Locke  grants.  That  there  are  extraordinary  ways 
whereby  the  knowledge  of  truth  may  be  imparted  to  men;  that 
God  fometimes  illuminates  by  his  Spirit  the  minds  of  men,  with 
the  knowledge  of  truths  ,*  that  there  is  no  bounds  to  be  fet  to 
fuch  divine  impreffions.  Now  if  all  this  is  fo,  why  may  there 
not  be  evidence  of  a  different  fort,  refulting  from  fuch  extraor- 
dinarv  impreffions,  illuminations,  &:c.  allowed  to  be  alfo  pof- 
fible  ? 

(5.)  Either  God  can  reveal  his  mind  fo  to  man,  as  to  give  him 
the  highefl;  evidence  or  obje6live  light  that  he  fpeaks  to  him, 
who  gets  that  revelation,  or  he  cannot,  if  he  can,  then  there 
is  pojfible  an  obje6tive  evidence,  and  that  of  the  higheft  fort, 
diffeient  from  thofe  three  mentioned  by  Mr.  Locke  :  for  that  it 
mud  be  different  is  evident,  becaufe  Mr.  Locke  in  this  cafe  will 
allow  no  place  for  felf-evidence,  or  that  evidence  we  have  in 
our  intuitive  knowledge,  which  he  determines  to  be  the  higheft 
degree  of  thefe  three  forts  he  has  admitted  and  owned.  Speak- 
ing of  immediate  revelation,  he  fays,  '*  No  evidence  of  our 
**  faculties,  by  which  we  receive  fuch  revelations,  can  exceed, 
**  if  equ^l,  the  certainty  of  our  intuitive  knowledge,  as  we 
**  heard  above."  Since  then  this  evidence  of  the  higheft  de- 
gree, is  difl"'erent  from  that  which  we  have  in  our  intuitive  know- 
ledge, (if  it  is  at  all)  it  muft  be  of  a  different  fort  from  any  of 
thofe  three  ;  For  by  concefTion,  it  is  not  felf-evidence  ;  and  ra- 
tional or  fenfible  it  is  not,  becaufe  thefe  forts  of  evidence  are 
of  a  degree  inferior  to  intuitive  evidence.  If  then  it  is  evidence 
of  the  higheft  degree,  fince  Mr.  Locke  will  not  admit  it  to  be 
felf-evidence,  it  muft  be  none  of  the  three  :  and  fo  we  have 
a  fourth  fort  admitted  poffible.  But  if  God  cannot  reveal  his 
mind,  fo  as  to  give  the  greateft  objective  evidence  that  he 
fpeaks,    or  is  the  revealer,  then  I  fay,   it  is  plain,  and  follows 

unavoid" 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  423 

unavoidably,  that  God's  teftimony  can  never  have  from  man  the 
hightft  degree  of  ajfentj  which  Mr.  Locke  above  exprefsly  ac- 
knowledged to  be  its  due.  It  is  in  vain  to  fay,  that  God's  tefli- 
mony  is  infallible  :  for  our  ailent  to  any  truth  upon  God  tefti- 
mony,  as  Mr.  Locke  truly  fays,  can  never  rife  higher,  than 
the  affurance  we  have  of  this,  that  really  we  have  God's  tedi- 
mony,  and  take  its  meaning.  If  then  God  cannot  give  us  the 
higheft  evidence  or  objedlive  light  as  to  this,  no  truth  he  offers 
can  have  from  us  the  higheft  degree  of  aflent.  To  me  this  looks 
like  blafphemy,  to  imagine,  that  God  has  made  a  rational  crea- 
ture, to  whom  he  cannot  fo  impart  his  mind  as  to  give  it  iuch 
evidence  as  is  abfolutely  necelTary  to  lay  a  ground  for  entertain- 
ing his  teftimony  with  that  refpedl,  which  is  its  unqueftionable 
due.  That  his  teftimony  is  in  itfclf  infallible,  will  never  make 
our  aflent  of  the  higheft  degree,  unlefs  the  evidence  of  his  giv- 
ing teftimony  is  of  the  higheft  degree. 

3.  **  We  aflert.  That  de  JaBo  there  really  is  a  fort  of  objec- 
**  tivc  evidence  or  light,  different  from  thofe  condefcended  on 
*'  by  Mr.  Locke." 

(i.)  The  prophets  to,  whom  immediate  revelations  were 
made,  had  obje6\ive  evidence,  or  light  fuflicient  to  ground  the 
higheft  affurance,  that  the  truths  impreffed  on  their  minds 
were  from  God.  It  is  impious  to  deny  it.  But  this  Mr.  Locke 
will  not  allow  to  be  fuch  evidence  as  we  have  in  our  intuitive 
knowledge  ;  and  all  muft  confefs,  that  it  did  not  refuit  from 
their  outward  fenfes;  and  that  it  was  not  grounded  on  reafonings 
from  evidences,  marks  or  iigns,  extrinfical  to  the  revelations 
themfelves,  feems  undeniable,  or  even  from  reafoning,  and 
making  inferences  from  what  was  intrinlical  to  the  revelation. 
For,  I .  We  find  not,  that  this  perfuafion  came  to  them  by  fuch 
argumentation  or  reafoning.  We  can  fee  no  ground  from  any 
accounts  we  have  in  fcripture  to  think,  that  they  took  this  way 
to  affure  their  own  minds.  Yea,  2.  The  fcripture-accounfs  of 
the  way  of  their  being  convinced,  feem  all  to  import,  that  as 
God  impreffed  the  truths  on  their  minds,  fo  that  immediately  by 
that  very  impreffion,  he  fixed  an  indelible  and  firm  conviction 
of  his  being  the  revealer.  Again,  3.  Ws  fee,  that  the  evidersce 
was  fp  convincing  as  to  bear  down  in  them  the  force  of  the 
ftrongeft  reafoningsand  the  cleareft  arguments  that  ftood  againft 
it,  as  we  fee  evidently  in  the  cafe  of  Abraham ,'  he  is  command- 
ed to  offer  his  fon  Ifaac  ;  if  this  command  had  not  been  im-* 
preffed  on  his  mind  with  an  evidence,  that  God  was  the  reveal- 


er 


424  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

er,  beyond  what  any  reafoning  upon  figns  and  marks,  and  I 
know  not  what,  could  pretend  tOj^  the  ftrong  plain  arguments, 
that  lay  againfl:  it,  ftrengthened  by  a  combination  of  the  flrong- 
eft  natural  affe(f^ions,  muft  have  carried  it.  4.  If  Abraham  was 
convinced  by  fuch  reafonings,  that  God  revealed  this,  that 
this  command  was  from  God,  is  it  not  llrange  that  he,  makes  no 
mention  of  them,  when  it  was  fo  obvious,  that  it  was  liable  to 
be  queftioned  whether  God  could  give  fuch  a  command?  But  the 
truth  of  it  rs,  it  is  obvious  to  any  one  that  thinks,  that  nothing 
could  prevail  in  this  cafe,  but  the  incontrollable  and  irrefiftible 
evidence  refulting  from  the  very  imprcirion,  v^'hereby  the  com- 
mand was  revealed.  But  we  wave  any  further  confideraiion  o^ 
this,  which  now  we  have  no  experience  of. 

(2.)  Mr.  Locke  will  admit,  that  the  primitive  Chriftians,  who 
embraced  the  gofpel,  did  it  upon  fufHcient  obje6\ive  evidence. 
He  is  not  a  Chrillian  who  denies  it.  But  he  will  not  admit  in- 
tuitive evidence  in  this  cafe.  And  I  lliall,  I  hope,  afterwards 
make  it  appear,  that  it  was  not  on  the  evidence  of  fuch  Feafon-, 
ings,  as  Mr.   Locke  talks  of,  that  they  embraced  it. 

(q.)  The  fcriptures  demand  our  afi'ent,  and  offer  no  evidence 
but  this  of  God's  authority.  And  arguments  are  not  infifted  on 
to  prove,  that  it  is  God  that  fpeaks  ;  God  calls  us  not  to  affent 
without  objective  evidence,  and  yet  waves  the  ufe  of  fuch  ar- 
guments as  Mr.  Locke  would  have  to  be  the  foundation  of  our 
faiih.  There  mull  be  therefore  fome  objedive  light  of  a  dif- 
ferent fort  fuppofed,  that  muft  be  the  ground  of  our  aflent.  And 
that  there  really  is  fo,  the  fcriptures  teach,  as  we  fhall  fee  af- 
terwards, when  this  propofition  muft  be  proven,  and  explained 
more   fully, 

(4.)  Abftra£iing  from  what  has  been  faid,  we  have  as  good 
ground  as  can  be  defired,  and  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  admits, 
for  believing  there  is  really  tx  light  di/iinSI  from  thofe  mentioned 
by  Mr.  Locke.  As  to  the  pcrfons  who  have  it,  this  light  evi- 
dences ilfelf  in  the  fame  way  as  the  other  forts  of  intellectual 
light  do-  They  are  conlcious  of  it,  and  find  it  has  the  fame  ef- 
fecl,  determining  the  mind  totifTent,  alluring  it,  and  giving  it 
reft  in  the  full  conviction  of  truth.  A^  to  others  who  want  it, 
they  have  fuch  evidence  as  a  blind  man  has,  that  there  is  fuch 
a  thing  as  vifible  evidence.  They  have  the  concurring  fuffiage 
of  perfons  fobcr,  judicious  and  rational,  who  have  given  evi- 
dence of  the  greatcft  cautioufnefs  in  guarding  againft  deluf^on, 
enthufiafm,  and  groundlefs  imaginations.     Bchdes,  the  eife6ts 

pecu- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  425 

peculiarly  flowing  from  fuch  a  faith  as  leans  on  this  foundation, 
gives  evidence  tc  it.  But  I  cannot  ftay  to  prove  this  further  at 
prefent. 

4.  **  Though  perhaps  an  account  every  way  fatisfying  can- 
**  not  be  given  of  the  nature  of  this  light,  nor  can  we  fo  clear 
*'  what  it  is,  and  wherein   it  confirts,  as  to  make  thofe  who  are 

unacquainted  with  it,  underftand  it,  or  have  as  c0^  a  notion 
**  of  it  as  they  have,  whofe  experience  fatisfies  them  as   to  its 

reality  :    Yet  fuch   an  account  may  be  given  of  it,  as  may 

fecure  it  againft  the  imputation  of  unreafonablenefs,  and  un- 

intelligibility."  To  this  purpofe,  I  (hall  only  obferve  the 
few  things  enfuing. 

(i.)  That  light  or  obje6\lve  evidence,  whereon  we  are  obli- 
ged to  believe,  and  all  that  are  rubje6tively  enlightened  to  be- 
lieve the  fcriptures,  and  ground  their  affent,  is  fuch,  that  a 
more  intelligible  account  by  far  may  be  given  of  it  to  thofe, 
who  have  no  experience  of  it,  than  can  be  given  of  the  objec- 
tive evidence  of  villble  objeds  to  peribns  who  have  no  experi- 
ence of  fight.     To  clear  this, 

(2.)  It  is  to  be  obferved,  that  in  the  writings  of  men,  efpeci- 
aliyof  fome,  who  have  any  peculiarity  of  genius,  and  excel  in 
any  kind,  we  find  fuch  chara6ters,  marks  and  peculiar  evidences 
of  them,  not  only  in  the  matter,  but  in  the  manner  of  expref- 
fion,  and  way  of  delivering  their  thoughts:  there  is  fuch  a  fpl- 
rit,  and  fomewhat  fo  peculiar  to  themfelves  to  be  obferved,  that 
fuch  as  have  any  notion  of  their  writings,  cannot  thereon  avoid 
a  convi6lion,  that  this  or  that  book,  though  it  bears  not  the  au- 
thor's name,  or  thofe  other  marks,  whereon  we  depend  as  to  our 
opinion  of  the  authors  of  books,  of  whom  we  have  no  particu- 
lar acquaintance,  is  yet  written  by  fuch  an  author,  the  veftiges 
of  whofe  peculiar  fpirit  and  genius  run  through,  and  are  dif- 
cernible  in  the  flrain  of  the  book.  There  are  few  men,  who 
are  acquainted  with  books,  and  read  them  with  attention  and 
judgment,  who  have  not  the  experience  of  this.  And  hence 
we  arc  frequently  referred  to  this,  as  what  may  fatisfy  us,  that 
books  that  bear  fuch  author's  names  are  genuine  and  truly 
theirs.*     And  it  is  found  more  convincing  than  the  atteflation 

G  g  g  of 

*  «  Though  you  had  not  named  the  author,  &c.  I  could  have 
"  known  and  avouched  him.  There  is  a  face  of  a  ftyle,  by  which 
♦<  vvc  fcholars  know  one  another,  no  lefs  than  our  perfons  by  a  vifible 
*'  countenance."  Bi'^ip  ilaH's  preface-  i9  Dr»  Tnvifs's  dauhting  Con/, 
■rcjol'Vid-)   PHg,  2. 


426  AN   ESSAY    CONCERNING 

of  no  incredible  witneffes  in  many  cafes.  Yet  it  mufi  be  confeffed, 
that  perfons  of  the  bell  judginent,  and  moft  capable  to  exprefs 
their  thoughts,  will  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impoffible  to  exprefs 
intelligibly  v/herein  this  obje6^ive  evidence  confilis :  But  that 
really  it  is  there,  that  there  is  fuch  a  thing,  is  impoffible  for 
them  to  queftion. 

(3.)  If  poor  men,  who  differ  infinitely  lefs  f-om  one  ano- 
ther, than  the  moll;  exalted  created  being  can  be  fuppofed  to  do 
from  God,  do  impart  to  the  produft  of  their  own  thoughts,  and 
leave  on  their  writings  fuch  peculiar  and  difcernible  chara6lers 
of  their  own  genius  and  fpirit,  as,  at  firft  view,  upon  the  lead 
ferious  attention,  co?ivinces  the  reader,  that  they  are  the  au- 
thors, and  enables  him  to  diflingui(h  their  writings  from  others, 
is  it  not  reafonabie  to  fuppofe,  that  a  book  written  by  God,  mufl 
carry  on  it  a  peculiar  and  diftinguifliing  imprefs  of  its  author; 
and  that  by  fo  much  the  more  certainly  difcernible,  by  any  that 
has  right  notions  of  him,  as  the  difference  betwixt  him  and  the 
iDoft  exalted  human  genius  is  infinitely  greater,  than  that  be- 
twixt the  moft  contemptible  pamphlet  writer  and  the  moft  ele- 
vated fchoiar  ?  Nay,  is  it  not  impoftible  rationally  to  imagine 
the  contrary  ?  Can  we  think.  !hat  he,  who  in  all  his  works, 
even  in  the  meaneft  infecl,  has  left  fuch  objective  evidence, 
and  fuch  impreffions  of  himielf,  whereby  he  is  certainly  known 
to  be  the  author,  has  not  left  imprefiions,  more  remarkable 
and  diftinguiihing,  on  his  word,  which  ke  has  magnified  above 
^11  his  namif  that  in,  all  the  means  whereby  he  defigns  to 
make  himfelf  known,  and  which  he  defigned  to  be  the  prin- 
cipal means  ot  imparting  the  knowledge  of  himfelf  to  men, 
and  that  for  the  higheft  purpofes, — ihc'ir  Jaivatton  and  his  ozon 
glory, 

(4.)  This  Imprefs,  thofe  charaftcrs,  prints  and  veftigcs  of 
the  infin-"te  pertcrtions  of  the  Deity,  that  unavoidably  muft  be 
allowed  to  be  ftampcd  on,  and  fhJne,  not  merely,  or  only,  or 
principally,  in  the  matter,  but  in  that  as  fpoken  or  written,  and 
in  the  writings  or  words,  in  their  ftile,  the  fpirit  running 
througli  them,  the  fcopc,  tendency,  &c.  This  Oz-i'nfzTiztci,  or 
God-becoming  imprels  of  majefty,  fovereignty,  omnifcience, 
inilcpendence,  holi nelVj,  juftice,  goodnefs,  wlfdom  and  power, 
is  not  only  a  fuiHoient  and  real,  but  in  very  deed,  the  greateft 
objective  light  and  evidence  imaginable.  And  where  one  has 
an  underjianding  given  to  know  him  that  is  true,  and  is  made 
thereby  to  enlertdin  any  fuitable  notions  of  the  Deity,  upon  in- 
tuition 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  427 

tuition  of  this  obje6\ive  evidence,  without  waiting  to  reafon  on 
the  matter,  his  aflent  will  be  carried,  and  unavoidably  deter- 
mined to  reft  on  it  as  the  higheft  ground  of  aflurance.  A.nd 
this  aflent,  founded  on  this  imprefs  of  the  Deity  in  his  own 
■word,  is  indeed  an  alTent  of  the  higheft  degree.  And  thus 
far  faith  refembles  our  intuitive  knowledge,  with  this  difference, 
not  as  to  the  manner  of  the  mind's  a6ling,  but  as  to  the  ability 
whence  it  a(5ls  ;  that  in  our  intuitive  knowledge,  as  Mr.  Locke, 
and  thofe  of  his  opinion,  reftrlc^s  it,  the  evidence  or  objedlive 
light  is  fuch  as  not  only  is  immediately  without  reafoning  dif- 
cerned,  but  fuch  as  lies  open  to,  and  is  difcernible  by  cur  un- 
derftandins^s,  without  any  fubjed^ive  light,  any  work  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  either  repairing  our  difabled  feculties,  or  ele- 
vating and  guiding  them  to  the  due  obfervation,  or  fixing  their 
attention,  or  freeing  their  minds  of  the  power  and  prefent  in- 
fluence of  averfion  of  will,  diforder  of  affeiStions,  and  pejudices 
that  obftru6l  the  difcerning  power.  Whereas  this  is  really  ne- 
ceflary  in  this  cafe  ;  and  though  the  obje£live  evidence  is  great, 
and  ftill  the  fame,  yet  according  to  the  greater  or  lelTs^r  degree 
of  this  affiftance,  our  aflent  muft  be  ftronger  or  weaker,  more 
fixed  or  wavering. 

(5.)  When  this  obje6^ive  evidence  is  actually  obfervant  to, 
and  under  the  view  of  the  mind  thus  enabled,  difpofed  and  af- 
iifted,  there  doth  arife  from  it,  and  there  is  made  by  it,  an  im- 
preflion  on  the  whole  foul  correfponding  thereto.  The  beaming 
of  God's  fovereign  authority  awes  confcience.  The  piercing  evi- 
dence of  his  omnifcience  increafes  that  regard,  the  view  of  his 
goodnefs,  mercy,  love  and  grace,  operates  on  the  will,  and 
leaves  a  relifli  on  the  affe6\ions,  and  this  truly  refembles  f':nfi- 
ble  evidence,  tiiough  it  is  of  fpiritual  things,  and  of  a  fpiritual 
nature  ;  nor  is  it,  as  it  is  evidence,  inferior  to,  but  upon  many 
accounts  preferable  to  that  which  refults  from  the  impreuion 
made  by  fenfible  objesSts.  And  this,  as  was  obferved  of  the 
former,  is  alfo  greater  or  lefs,  according,  and  in  proportion 
unto  the  view  we  have  of  that  objective  light  above  mentioned. 
This  ielf-evidencing  power  is  a  refultancy  from,  and  in  degree 
keeps  pace  with  that  i"e!f-evidencing  light. 

(6.)  The  effetSts  wrought  on  the  foul  are  fuch,  many  of  ihem, 
as  not  only  are  mod  difcernible  in  the  time,  but  likewife  do  re- 
main on  the  foul,  fome  of  them  ever  after,  many  of  them  for  a 
long  tra6l  of  time,  and  in  their  nature  are  fuch  as  evidently 
tend  to  the  perfecting  of  our  facuUies,  are  fuitable  to  thetn,  and 

for 


428  AN   ESSAY   CONCERNING 

for  their  Improvement,  even  according  to  what  unprejudiced  and 
fober  reafon  determines,  as  to  that  wherein  the  defe6\s  of  our 
faculties,  and  their  perfection  conhfts*  And  the  reality  of.thoie 
ciTc6ts,  whereof  the  mind  is  inwardly  confcious,  appears  to  the 
conviction  of  beholders,  in  their  influence  upon  the  perfon's 
deportment  before  the  world.     And, 

(7.)  Hence  it  is,  that  though  our  conviClion  neither  needs, 
nor  is  founded  on  reafonings  ;  yet  from  thofc  effetis  ground  is 
given,  and  matter  offered  for  a  rational  and  argumentative  con- 
firmation of  cur  affent,  and  the  grounds  thereof,  and  the  vali- 
dity of  it  for  our  own  confirmation,  when  that  evidence  which 
firft  gave  ground  for  our  faith,  and  wherein  it  refts,  is  not  ac- 
tually under  view,  as  alfo  for  the  convi6\ion  of  others. 

(8.)  This  evidence  is  fuch  as  indeed  challenges,  and  is  a 
fufficient  bottom  for  an  afient  of  the  higheft  degree.  And  in- 
deed the  faints  of  God,  and  that  even  of  the  meaneR  condition, 
and  who  have  been  under  the  moft  manifeft  difadvantages,  both 
as  to  capacity  and  education,  with  the  like  accafions  of  im- 
provement, upon  this  bottom  have  reached  faith,  comprifing 
alTurance  without  doubt,  even  that  full  a/furance  of  faith,  yea 
the  riches  of  the  full  ajfurance  of  iindeiflandiiig,  as  has  been 
evident  by  the  efFefts  in  death  and  life,  of  which  we  have  no- 
table inftances  not  a  few  in  Heb.  xi.  throughout,  both  in  ad- 
verfity  and  profperity,  life  and  death. 

5'  **  I  obferve,  That  this  light  or  objective  evidence  where- 
**  on  faith  is  bottomed,  has  no  affinity  with,  but  is  at  the  fur- 
*'   theft  remove  from  cnthufiaftick  impulfe,  or  imaginations." 

(i.)  This  is  not  a  perfuafion  without  reafon.  Here  is  the 
firongeft  reafon,  and  the  affent  hereon  given  leans  upon  the  moil 
pregnant  evidence. 

(2.)  It  carries  no  contradiction  to  our  f«:culties,  but  influ- 
ences them,  each  in  a  way  fuitable  to  its  nature  and  condition. 

(3.)  Yea  more,  none  of  our  faculties  in  their  due  ufe  do 
contiadiCt,  or  at  leafl:  difprovc  it.  Whereas  enthufiaftick  im- 
preiTions  are  irrational. 

(4.)  This  is  not  a  perfuafion,  nor  a  ground  for  it  without,  or 
contrary  to  the  word,  but  it  is  the  evidence  of  the  word  itfelf, 
that  by  it  we  are  direCled  to  attend  to,  and  improve. 

(5.)  Yea  it  is  what  our  other  faculties  in  their  due  ufe  will 
give  a  confequential  confirmation  to,  as  we  have  heard.  Where- 
fore, 

(6.)  INIr,   Locke  fiiall  be  allowed  to  run  down  enthufiafm  as 

much 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  429 

much  as  be  pleafeth,  and  **  perfuafions  whereof  no  reafon  can 
*'  be  given,  but  that  we  are  ftrongly  perfuaded,"  or  not  to 
give  credit  to  thofe  that  can  fay  no  more  for  themfclves,  "  but 
**  we  fee  or  feel,"  &c.  But  thefe  things  as  delivered  by  Locke, 
need  lome  cautions.  As,  i.  A  perfuafion  whereof  no  reafon 
can  be  given,  is  certainly  not  faith,  but  fancy  :  but  a  perfua- 
fion, whereof  he  that  hath  it,  through  weaknefs,  cannot  give 
an  account,  may  be  [olid.  2.  A  perfuafion  may  be  folid,  of 
which  he  that  hath  it,  cannot  give  another  evidence  of  the  fame 
kind  as  he  hath  himfelf.  It  is  enough  that  proof  of  another 
fort,  and  fufficient  in  its  kind,  is  offered.  3.  If  one  fays,  he  fees 
and  he  feels,  this  may  be  fatisfying  to  him,  though  he  cannot 
give  any  diftindt  account  of  the  evidence  he  hath.  And  that 
he  cannot  thus  account  for  the  nature  of  things  that  are  within 
him,  concludes  not  againft  the  reality  and  truth  of  what  he  has 
the  experience:  but  his  experience  is  not  ground  of  convi6lion  to 
others,  unlefs  other  proofs  are  offered.  A  man  of  a  fhallow 
capacity,  deftitute  of  education,  might  be  convidted  of  enthu- 
fiam  by  a  fubtile  blind  man,  to  whom  he  cannot  for  his  feeing 
give  an  evidence  of  the  fame  kind,  nor  open  the  nature  of  vifible 
evidence,  nor  give  any  other  proof  that  he  is  not  miftaken,  but 
that  he  fees  ;  and  yet  notwithftanding  of  this  he  is  not  miftak- 
en, aflents  not  without  reafon,  and  has  no  ground  to  call  in 
queftion  what  he  fees,  but  may  and  will  fecurely  laugh  at  all 
the  l^lind  man's  quirks,  and  tell  him,  he  is  blind*  The  cafe 
is  parallel.  We  muft  not  by  this  atheiftical  fcare-crow  be  fright- 
ened out  of  our  faith  and  experience. 

6.  "  That  many  read  the  fcriptures,  without  difcerning  any;  | 
"   thing  of  this  light,  is  no  argument  againft  it."     For, 

(i.)  Many  want  that  fupernatural  ability,  that  underftand- 
ing  whereby  God  is  known,  whereby  Chrift's  ^^e/>  know  his 
voice Jro7n  that  of  ajlranger,  and  fo  not  being  oj  God,  they  can-- 
not  hear  his  words, 

(2.)  Many  want,  and  are  utterly  deftitute  of  any  tolerable 
notions  of  God  :  It  is  impoffible  fuch  fhould  difcern  what  is  fuit-^ 
able  to  him. 

(3.)  Many  have  perverfe  notions  of  God  rivetted  on  their 
minds,  and  that  both  among  the  learned  and  unlearned  j  and 
finding  the  fcripture  not  fuited  to,  but  contrary  to  thofe  falfe 
pre-conceived  impreflions,  they  look  on  it  as  fooliihnefs. 

(4.)  Many  want  that  humble  frame  of  fpirit,  which  has  the 

promife 


430  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

promife  of  divine  teaching ;  the.  meek  he  guides  in  the   zoay. 
It  is  they  who  are  fools  in  their  own   eyes,  who  get  wifdom. 

(5,)  Many  are  proud  and  conceited  deeply,  and  no  wonder 
then  that  they  know  nothing. 

(6.)  Many  have  the  vanity  of  their  minds  uncured,  and  fo 
hunt  after  vain  things,  and  fix  not  in  obfervation  of  what  is  fo- 
lid,  and  thereby  their  foohjh  hearts  art  hardened,  and  their 
minds  darkened  and  diverted. 

(7.)  Not  a  few  are  under  the  power  of  prevailing  lufts,  dif- 
ordered  afFe6\ions,  and  out  of  favour  to  them  they  are  fo  far 
from  defiring  an  increafe  of  knowledge,  that  on  the  contrary, 
they  like  not  to  retain  God  in  their  kMowledge.  What  they  al- 
ready know,  is  uneafy  to  them,  becaufe  contrary  to  their  lufts, 
and  therefore  they  would  be  rid  of  it. 

(8.)  Many  there  are  that  defpife  the  Spirit  of  God,  reje£l  his 
operations,  feek  not  after  him,  contemn  him  :  And  no  wonder 
fuch  as  refufe  the  guide,  lofe  their  way. 

(9.)  Many,  for  thofe  and  other  fins,  are  judicially  left  of  God 
to  ihc  god  of  this  world,  who  blinds  the  minds  of  them  that  hi' 
lieve  not. 

(10.)  Many  never  attempt  to  do  his  will,  and  fo  no  wonder 
they  come  not  to  a  difcerning  whether  the  word  fpoken  and 
written,  is  of  God.  And  if  all  thefe  things  are  confidered,  wc 
fhall  be  fo  far  from  quedioning  the  truth,  becaufe  many  fee  not 
X'viQ  evidence,  that  this  very  blindnefs  will  be  an  argument  to 
prove  the  truth  of  it,  and  a  ftrong  evidence  of  the  need  of  it, 
and  of  fupernatural  power  (o  believe  it. 

Finally,  Perfons  fober  and  attentive  want  not  fome  darker 
views  of  this  evidence,  which  may  and  fhould  draw  on  to  wait 
for  more.  And  I  take  the  honourable  confeffions,  in  favour  of 
the  fcriptures,  made  by  adverfaries,  to  have  proceeded  from 
fome  fainter  views  of  this  fort. 

Thus  I  have  confidered  the  force  of  what  I  find  pleaded  by 
Mr.  Locke  ;  flated  the  queftion  ;  cleared  in  fome  meafure  'our 
opinion  as  it  flands  opppfed  to  that  of  the  Rationalifls  ;  ailigned 
an  intelligible  notion  of  the  reafon  of  faith  ;  and  fliewed  it  to 
be  fuch  as  the  meaneft  are  capable  of,  and  fuch  as  is  propofed 
to  ail  who  are  obliged  to  believe  the  fcriptures  :  whereas  thefe 
hiftorical  proofs  are  above  the  reach  of  thoufands,  and  were  ne- 
ver heard  of  by  innumerable  muliitiides,  who,  on  pain  of  dam- 
nation, arc  obliged  to  receive  the  fcriptures  as  the  word  of  God. 

IV.  Having 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  431 

IV.  Having  in  our  third  obfervation  overthrown  the  ground 
of  Mr.  Locke's  opinion,  we  are  now  to  clear,  that  what  Mr, 
Locke  builds  on,  nnuft  of  courfe  fall  ;  particularly  what  he  tells 
us,  Lib.  4.  Cap.  18.  Par.  6.  pag.  584.  "  That  they,  who  make 
'*  revelation  alone  the  fole  object  of  faith,  cannot  fay,  that  it 
**  is  a  matter  of  faith,  and  not  of  reafon,  to  beieive,  that  fuch 
**  or  fuch  a  propofiiion,  to  be  found  in  fuch  or  fuch  a  book, 
**  is  of  divine  infpiration ;  unlefs  it  be  revealed.  That  that 
**  propofition,  or  all  in  that  book  was  communicated  by  di- 
**  vine  infpiration."  And  he  goes  on  telling  us,  That  with- 
"  out  fuch  a  particular  revelation,  affuring  us  of  this,  that  this 
"  propofition  is  by  divine  infpiration,  it  can  never  be  matter 
**  of  faith,  but  matter  of  reafon,  to  affent  to  it." 

What  Mr.  Locke  defignsby  this  difcourfe,  1  know  not;  un- 
lefs he  meant  to  put  us  under  a  neceffity  to  prove  every  propofi- 
tion of  the  fcripture  to  be  of  divine  infpiration,  before  we  believe 
what  it  exhibits.  And  if  this  is  what  he  intends,  he  overthrows 
the  Chriftian  religion  entirely,  at  leaft  as  to  its  ufe  and  advan- 
tage to  the  generality.  But  waving  what  further  might  be  ob- 
ferved,  I  (hall  only  animadvert  a  little  upon  that  one  aflerticn, 
**  That  our  belief,  that  this  or  that  propofition  is  from  God,  is 
"  not  an  a<5l  of  faith  but  of  reafon."     As  to  which  I  fay, 

1.  If  Mr.  Locke  defigned  no  more  but  this.  That  the  men* 
tioned  alTent  to  the  fcripture  propofitions,  is  an  a6^  of,  and  fub- 
je6led  in  our  rational,  or  intelledive  faculty,  it  might  well  be 
admitted.     Or, 

2.  If  Mr.  Lock  meant,  that  this  affent  is  agreeable  to  the  na- 
ture of  our  minds,  that  is,  that  it  is  not  really  contrary  to  the  true 
principles  of  reafon,  nor  fuch  as  proceeds  without  fuch  grounds 
as  the  nature  of  our  underftandings  require  for  founding  an  af- 
fent, we  ftiould  admit,  that  in  this  fenfe  it  is  an  a6t  of  reafon, 
that  is,  a  rational  a6l,  as  not  only  being  elicit  by  oar  under- 
ikndings,  but  depending  on  fuch  a  reafon  or  ground,  as  the 
nature  of  the  intellediual  power  requires,  and  which  muft  al- 
ways be  confident  with  our  certain  knowledge.      But, 

3.  Neither  of  thefe  being  intended,  we  cannot  go  along  with 
Mr.  Locke  in  what  he  means  by  this  expreffion,  That  cur  belief 
of  fcripture  propofitions,  is  an  act  of  reafon,  that  is,  an  afient 
not  built  upon  divine  tefiimony,  but  on  fuch  other  argv:iing§ 
and  reafonings,  as  we  can  find  out  for  proving  that  God  revealed 
it*  Becaufe  we  fay,  and  fiiall  afterwards  prove,  that  the  fcrip- 
tures  do  evidence   themfelves  to  be  from  Gcd,   in  that  way  a- 

bove- 


432  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

above-expreiTcd,  and  afterwards  to  be  explained  and  confirmed, 
which  we  hope  fhall  be  done  in  fuch  Ibrt,  as  may  ell^edually 
repel  the  force  of  what  Mr.  Locke  has  pleaded  in  oppofilion  to 
the  fcriptures,  and  fhew,  that  there  is  no  reafon  for  ranking  all 
the  truths  therein  delivered  amongft  thofe  conjectural  things 
that  lean  only  on  probabilities  and  reafonings  from  them,  which 
Mr.  Locke  evidently  does,  while  he  fmks  traditional  revelation 
as  to  the  point  of  certainty  below  our  intuitive,  rational  and  fen- 
fible  knowledge  ;  and  baniihes  all  faith,  properly  fo  called,  out 
of  the  world,  leaving  no  room  for  it,  and  fubl^ituting  in  its 
place  an  act  of  reafon,  proceeding  upon  probabilities,  that  is, 
on  hiftorical  proofs,  which  he  reckons  only  among  probabilities; 
nor  do  I  blame  him  for  this  laft,  though  perhaps  lome  things  he 
has  offered  on  this  head,  might  be  excepted  againil  ;  but  this  is 
not  my  bufinefs. 

The  quellion  in  (hort  amounts  to  this,  "  Whereas  the  fcrip- 
**  tures,  wherever  they  come,  oblige  all  to  v.rhom  they  are  of- 
**  fered,  to  receive  them  not  as  the  word  of  man,  but,  as  in- 
**  deed  they  are,  the  zoord  of  God;  upon  what  ground  or  for* 
"  mal  reafon  is  it,  that  we  afTent  thus  unto  them,  and  receive 
**  them  as  the  word  of  God,  to  his  glory  and  our  falvatien,  in 
**   compliance  with  our  duty  ?" 

In  anfvvcr  to  this  important  query,  I  fnall  offer  what,  upon  a 
review  of  former  experieiice,  confideration  of  the  fcriptures,  and 
what  otliers,  cfpecially  that  judicious  and  profound  divine  Dr. 
Owen,  in  his  two  treatifes  on  this  fubje6i,  have  written  on  this 
head,  appears  fatisfying  to  me:  And  this  1  (ball  do  in  the  few 
following  Propoftions,  which  I  fliall,  with  as  much  brevity  anj 
pcrfpicuity  as  I  can,  lay  down,  and  ihorlly  confirm  with  fome 
few  arguments. 

Prop.  I.  **  That  faith  whereby  we  afTent  unto,  and  receive 
«*  the  word  of  God,  to  his  glory  and  our  falvation,  is  faith  di- 
**  vine  and    fupernatural." 

1.  There  are  at  this  day,  who  teach,  That  whatever  faith 
is  at  preCent  to  be  found  amongft  men,  is  built  upon,  and  re- 
folved  into  the  teflimony  of  men*.  And  therefore  it  will  be 
neceflary  to  iniili  a  little  in  confirniing  and  explaining  of  this 
important  truth. 

2.  To  clear  this  we  obferve,  that  the  underflanding,  or  that 
faculty,  power  or  ability  of  the  foul  of  man,  whereby  we  per- 
ceive, 

*  Le'  Clerk  in  his  Logicks. 


THE  REz^SON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  433 

ceive,  and  alTent  unto  truths  upon  their  proper  evidence,  rray 
be  dillinguifned  or  branched  into  diverlc  iubordinate  powers,  in 
refpecl  of  the  ditFerent  truths  to  which  it  affents.  i.  We  have 
an  ability  of  affenting  unto  the  felf-evident  maxims  of  reafon, 
fuch  as  that,  The  fame  things  at  the  fame  time,  cannot  he  and  not 
he,  upon  their  own  feif-cvidence,  without  any  other  argument, 
than  a  bare  propofal  of  them  in  terms  we  underiland.  2.  We 
have  an  ability  to  aiTent  unto  other  truths,  upon  conviction  of 
their  truth  by  argunients,  drawn  from  the  fore-mentioned  lelf- 
evident  truths,  or  any  other  acknowledged  or  owned  by  us. 
3.  We  have  an  ability  to  aiTent  unto  truths,  upon  the  evidence 
of  the  tellimony  of  credible  witnefles,  or  perlons  worthy  to  be 
believed,  and  of  deferving  credit.  This  ability,  and  the  alTent 
given  by  it  to  fuch  truths,  upon  fuch  teftimony,  are  both  called 
by  the  fame  common  name,  faith* 

3.  Faith  then  is  that  power  or  ability  of  the  mind  of  man, 
•whereby  be  is  capable  of  receiving,  and  a6\uallv  aflents  unto 
truths  upon  the  evidence  of  the  teftimony  of  perfons  worthy  of 
credit,  who  know  what  they  teftify,  and  will  not  deceive  us. 
Now  whereas  the  perfon  giving  this  teftimony,  is  either  God, 
men,  or  angels,  good  or  bad,  faith  may  be  confidered  as  either 
divine,  human  or  angelical.  This  laii,  as  of  no  confideration  to 
our  purpofe,  we  (liall  lay  afide.  That  faith,  or  ability,  whereby 
we  alTent  to  the  teftimony  of  men  worthy  of  credit,  is  called  hu- 
7nan  faith'  And  thai  whereby  we  affent  to  truths  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  the  teftimony  of  God,  who  cannot  lie,  is  called  divine 

faith. 

4.  Divine  faith  is  that  power,  or  ability  whereby  we  alTent 
unto,  and  receive  truths  propofed  to  us  upon  evidence  of  the 
word  or  teftimony  of  God,  to  our  own  falvation,  in  conipiiance 
with  our  duty,  to  the  glory  of  God. 

5.  In  this  account  of  divine  faith,  we  add,  in  compliance  with 
our  duty,  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  ow^  own  falvation,  becaufe 
devils  and  men  may  yield  fome  affent  unto  truths,  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  God's  teftimony,  which  neither  anfwers  their  duty, 
nor  turns  to  the  glory  of  God  in  their  falvation,  of  which  we 
do  not  now  defign  to  fpeak,  and  therefore  by  this  claufe  have 
cut  it  off,  and  laid  it  afide,  as  not  belonging  to  that  faith  where- 
of we  now  fpeak,  and  whereby  we  conceive  all,  to  whon)  the 
fcriptures  come,  are  obliged  to  receive  them. 

6.  This  faith  now  defcribed  may  be  called  divine,  and  fuper- 
natural,  and  really  is  fo  on  two  accounts,   i.  Becaufe  this  abiii- 

H  h  h  ty 

I 


434  AN*  ESSAY    CONCERNING 

tv  is  wrouj^ht  in  them,  in  whom  it  is  found,  by  the  divine  and 
fupernatural  power  of  God-  2.  Becaufe  it  builds  not  its  per- 
fuafion  of,  yields  not  its  aflenl  unto  the  truths  it  receives  upon 
any  human  authority  or  teiiimony  ;  but  upon  the  teftimony  of 
God,  who  can  neither  be  ignorant  of  any  truth,  deceived,  or 
deceive  us. 

y.  It  now  remains,  that  we  confirm  this  propofition  that  we 
have  thus  ftiorllv  explained.  And  this  we  ihall  do  by  its  kvc 
ral  parts.  F^y'?,  then  we  aflert,  "  That  this  faith  is  wrought  in 
'*  thefe,  who  have  it,  by  the  power  of  God."  Now  for  clear- 
ing this,  we  fhall  only  hint  at  the  heads  of  a  few  arguments, 
leaving  the  further  proof  to  polemic  treatifes.  I.  This  ability 
to  believe  and  receive  the  things  of  God  to  our  falvation  and 
his  glory,  is  in  fcripture  exprefsiy  denied  to  natural  or  unre- 
newed men.  2  Thef.  iii.  2.  All  men  have  7iot  jaiih.  i  Cor. 
jj,  14. — Jjit  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God:  For  they  are  foolifhnefs  unto  him  :  Neither  can  he  know^ 
them,  becaufe  they  are  fpiritually  difcerned.  Joh.  viii.  47. — Ye 
therefore  hear  not  God's  words,  becaufe  ye  are  not  oj  God. 
2.  This  is  exprefsiy  denied  to  be  of  ourfelves,  and  afferted  a 
fupernatural  gij^t  of  God-  Ephef.  ii.  '^.'—By  grace  K  arc 
faved  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  y ourfelves,  it  is  the  gift  of 
God.  3.  The  produ6iion  of  it  is  afcribed  unto  God.  He  it  is 
that  fulfils  in  his  people  the  work  of  faith  zvith  power,  2  Thef.' 
i.  1 1.  He  it  is  that  gives  them,  that  is,  that  enables  them,  on 
the  behalf  of  Chrifl,  to  believe  and  faff er  for  his  name,  Phil. 
J.  29.  It  is  one  oixht  fruits  produced  by  Xhcfpirit,  Gal.  v.  22. 
ana  of  it  Chrift  is  the.  author,     Heb.  xii.   2. 

Secondly,  We  are  next  ihortly  to  prove,  ''  that  this  faith 
*•  builds  its  perfuafion  on  the  teftimony  of  God  evidencing  it- 
*'  felf  fuch  unto  the  mind,"  and  not  on  human  teftimony^ 
2.  It  is  in  Icripture  exprefsiy  faid  not  to  7?^???^  in  the  zvfdo?n  of 
men,  i  Cor.  ii*.  5,  that  is,  it  leans  not  on  the  word,  authority, 
eloquence  or  reafonings  of  men.  2.  It  is  exprefsiy  in  that 
lame  verfe,  laid  to  fland  in  the  power  of  God,  that  is,  as  the 
foregoing;?  words  compared  with  ver.  13.  explain  it,  in  the 
zi'ords  which  the  HclyGhofl  teacheth,  and  which  he  demonftrates 
cr  evidences  by  his  power,  accompanying  them,  to  be  the  word 
of  God.  3.  It  is  defcrihed  in  fuch  a  way  as  fully  clears  this  ; 
it  is  held  forth  as  a  receiving  of  the  word,  not  as  the  word  of 
nun,  but  &sit  is  indeed  the  word  of  God,  which  effedually  zuork- 

eth 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  435 

dh  in  you  that  believe f  i-  Thef.  il.  13.  Many  other  proofs  miglit 
be  added,  but  this  is  fi;fflclent  to  anfwer  our  purpofc. 

Thirdly,  VVe  (hall  next  fhortly  prove,  *'  that  Vv^e  are  obliged 
**  in  duty  thus  to  believe  the  fcriptures,  or  to  receive  them  as 
**  the  word  of  God,  and  not  of  men."  i.  The  fcriptures  are 
indeed,  and  hold  forth  themfelves  every  where  as  the  word  of 
God.  They  are  the  oracles  of  God,  which  holy  men  of  God 
fpakz  by  the  motion  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  zurote  by  divine  in- 
fpiration,  and  the  Holy  Ghojl  /peaks  to  us  by  than*  Now 
when  God  utters  oracles,  fpeaks,  writes  and  utters  his  mind  to 
us,  we  are  in  duty  obliged  and  bound  to  aiTent  to  what  he  fays, 
and  yield  what  obedience  he  requires.  This  the  very  light  of 
nature  teacheth.  2.  The  fcriptures  were  written  for  this  very 
end,  that  we  might  believe,  and  that  believing  zve  might  have 
life,  John  xx.  30,  31.  The  fcriptures  of  the  prophets  (which 
contain  the  revelation  of  the  myfiery  of  God's  will,  otherwife 
not  known)  according  to  the  commandment  of  the  evtrlafling  God^ 
are  made  known  unto  all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith, 
Rom.  xvi.  25,  26.  Again  the  fcriptures  are  termed  a  more  fare, 
word  of  prophecy  than  the  voice  from  heaven,  and  men  are  faid  to 
do  well,  to  take  heedxo  them,  2  Pet.  i.  toward  the  clofe.  That  is, 
it  is  their  duty  to  take  heed  to  them,  or  believe  them.  3.  The 
mofl  dreadful  judgments  are  threatened  againfl;  thofe  who  re- 
ceive not  the  word  of  God  from  the  prophets  or  apoRlesi  whe- 
ther by  word  or  writ,  is  all  one.  Whojoever  fkall  not  receive. 
you,  nor  hear  your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that  houfe  or 
city,  fliake  off  the  dnfi  of  your  feet*  Veiily  1  fay  unto  you,  it 
fliall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Goviorrah,  in 
the  day  of  -judgment,  than  for  that  city,  Matth.  x.  14,  15.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  the  ^poftles  preach  the  word  at  Antioch  in 
Pifidia,  A6is  xiii.  ;  demand  acceptance  of  it  both  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  ;  and  upon  their  refufal  they  teliify  againft  them  in  the 
way  of  the  Lord's  appointment,  ver.  51.  Though  fo  far  as  we 
can  learn,  they  there  wrought  no  miracle  to  contirm  their  mif- 
fion.  4.  We  have  above  heard  the  apolVte  commending  the 
Thefialonians  for  receiving  the  word  as  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  of  man,  l  Theff.  ii.  13.  which  fufhciently  ihews  that  it 
was  their  duty. 

Whereas  fome  may  here  fay,  *'  How  can    it   be  our  duty  io 
believe  the  word  of  God,  unce  it  has  been  above    proved,  that 

we 

*   Heb.  V.  12. — 2  Per.  i.  20^  21. — 2  Tim.  iii.   16. — Mark  xii,  ^6. 
Afis  i.  16, — Ads  xxviii.  25.— rieb.  iii.  7, 


43^  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

wc  are  not  able  of  curfelves  thus  to  do  It."  I  anf'vver  briefly, 
I.  The  very  light  of  nature  requires  pcrfe£i  obedience  of  us; 
and  yet  we  are  not  able  to  yield  to  it.  2.  The  Icriptures  plain- 
ly require,  that  zve  Jerve  God  acceptahlyt  with  reverence  and 
godly  j car y  Heb.  xii.  28.  and  yet  we  muft  have  grace  whereby 
to  do  it.  3.  We  have  deflroyed  ourjllvesj  Flof.  xiii.  9.  and 
that  through  this,  our  faith  or  natural  ability  of  believing  truths 
upon  teflimony,  is  fo  impaired  and  weakened,  and  by  preju- 
dices fo  obitruuled  otherwife,  that  we  are  not  able  to  dif- 
cern  the  evidence  of  God's  authority,  in  his  word,  nor  afl'ent 
thereon  to  his  teftimony  in  a  due  manner,  yet  this  cannot 
reafonably  prejudge  God's  right  to  demand  credit  to  his  word, 
whereon  he  has  impreiled  fuch  prints  of  his  authority,  as  are 
fufficiently  obvious  to  any  one's  faith,  that  is  not  thus  faultily 
depraved.  4.  We  have  therefore  no  reafon  to  queflion  God, 
who  gave  us  eyes,  which  we  have  put  out,  but  to  blame  our- 
felves,  and  aim  to  do  his  will,  that  is,  wait  on  him  in  all  the 
ways  of  his  own  appointment  ;  and  we  have  no  reafon  to  def- 
pair,  but  that  in  this  way  we  may  have  gracioufly  given  us  of 
God's  fovereign  grace,  an  underflanding  to  know  whether 
thefe  truths  are  of  God,  or  they  who  fpoke  them  did  it  of  them- 
felves,  (i  John  v.  20-  John  vii.  17.)  Though  we  cannot  claim 
this  as  what  is  our  due. 

Thus  we  have  in  fome  meafure  cleared  what  that  faith  is, 
whereby  the  fcriptures  muft  be  believed  to  the  glory  of  God 
and  our  own  falvation,  and  confirmed  fliortly  our  account  of  it 
from  the  fcriptures  of  truth.     We  now  proceed  to 

Prop.  IL  '*  The  reafon  for  which  we  are  obliged  in  duty 
**  to  believe  or  receive  the  fcriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  is 
**  not,  That  God  has  by  his  Spirit  wrought  faith  in  us,  or  given 
**   us   this  ability  thus  to  receive  them." 

This  propofition  we  have  ofFcred,  becaufe  fome  do  blame 
Proteftants  for  faying  fo  ;  whereas  none  of  them  really  do  it. 
Nor  can  any  man  reafonably  fay  it.    For  clearing  this  obfcrve, 

I.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  ve  carrot  believe  them,  unlefs 
God  y^ive  us  this  gracious  ability  or  faith  to  believe  them, 
and  by  his  Holy  Spirit  remove  our  natural  darkncfs,  and  clear 
our  minds  of  thofe  prejudices  agaiqft  his  word,  wherewith  na- 
turally they  are  filled. 

2.  Yet  this  is  not  the  reafon  v/herefore  we  do  afTent  unto,  or 
receive   the  fcriptures ;  for  it  were  impertinent,  if  any  (liould 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  437 

aflc,  Upon  v»'hat  account  do  ye  believe  the  fcrlptures  to  be  the 
word  of  God  ?  to  anfwer,  1  believe  it  becauTe  God  has  wrought 
the  faith  of  it  in  me.  This  is  not  to  tell  wherefore  we  do  be- 
lieve, but  to  tell  how  we  came  to  be  furnilhed  with  power  or 
ability  to  believe. 

Prop.  HI.  "  We  are  not  to  believe  the  fcriptures  upon  the 
**  authority  of  any  man  or  church  :  or,  The  reafon  wherefore 
**  we  are  in  duty  bound  thus  to  afTent  to,  or  receive  the  fcrip- 
**  tures  as  the  word  of  God,  is  not,  that  any  man,  or  church, 
**  fays  fo." 

This  is  fully  demonftrated  by  our  writers  againft  the  Papids. 
For  confirmation  of  it,  it  is  fufficient  for  our  purpofe  at  pre- 
fent  to  obferve, 

1.  That  to  believe,  that  the  fcriptures  are  the  word  of  God, 
becaufe  fuch  a  man,  or  church  fays  fo,  anfwers  not  our  duty. 
Our  duty  is  to  believe  God  fpeaking  to  us,  upon  the  account  of 
his  own  veracity  ;  and  not  becaufe  men  fay,  that  this  is  his 
word.  This  is  not  to  believe  God  and  his  prophets  for  the  fake 
of  their  own  teflimony,  but  for  the  authority  of  men,  (2  Chron. 
XX.   20.) 

2.  The  faith  that  leans  upon  this  teftimony,  is  built  not  on 
the  truth  of  God^  but  on  the  ttjlimony  of  meriy  who  may  be 
deceived  and  deceive  :   All  men  are  liars* 

3.  We  have  no  where  in  the  word  this  propofed  as  the 
ground  whereon,  in  duty,  we  are  obliged  to  believe  the  fcrip- 
tures. 

4.  The  church,  and  what  (he  fays,  is  to  be  tried  by  the  word, 
and  her  teftimony  is  fo  far  only  to  be  received  as  the  word  con- 
fents :  and  therefore  we  cannot  make  this  the  ground  of  our 
faith,  without  a  fcandalous  circle,  which  the  church  of  Rome 
can  never  clear  herfelf  of. 

5.  But  I  need  infill  no  further  on  this  head.  That  church 
which  only  claims  this  regard  to  her  teftimony,  is  long  fince 
become  fo  well  known,  and  fo  fully  convi6led  of  manifold 
falfhoods,  that  her  tefiimony  rather  prejudges  than  helps  to  con- 
firm whatever  it  is  ens:as;ed  for. 


■to-to- 


Prop.  IV.  **  The  rational  arguments  whereby  the  truth  of 
**  the  Chriftian  religien  is  evinced  and  demonftraied  againft 
**  atheifts,  though  they  are  many  ways  ufeful,  yet  are  not  the 
**   ground  or  reafon  whereon,  in  a  way  of  duty,  all  who  have 

^*  the 


43S  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

"   the  Scriptures  propofed  to  them,  are  obliged   to  believe  and 
"   receive  them  as  the  word  of  God." 

Thefe  moral  and  rational  confideratlons  are,  and  •  may  be 
many  ways  ufeful  to  (top  the  mouths  of  enemies,  to  beget  la 
them,  who  yef  are  unacquainted  with  the  true  intrinfick  worth 
of  the  word,  Tome  value  for  it,  and  engage  them  to  confider  it  ; 
to  relieve  them  that  do  believe  againft  objeflions,  and  ftrength- 
en  their  faith.  This  is  allowed  to  them  ;  and  is  fufficient  in 
this  ioofe  and  atheiftical  age,  to  engage  perfons  of  all  forts, 
who  value  the  fcriptures,  to  lludy  them.  Bat  yet  it  is  not  up- 
on them  that  the  faith  required  of  us,  as  to  the  divine  authority 
of  the  fcriptures,  is  to  be  founded.     For, 

1.  Thefe  are  indeed  a  proper  foundation  for  a  rational  af- 
fent,  fuch  as  is  given  upon  moral  proof  or  demonftration.  And 
they  are  able  to  bege't  a  flrong  moral  perfuafion  of  this  truth.  But 
this  ailent  which  they  beget,  cannot,  in  any  propriety  of  fpeech, 
be  called  faith,  either  divine  or  human.  For  faith  is  an  affent 
upon  teftimony. 

2.  The  faith  that  is  required  of  us,  is  required  to  be  found- 
ed not  on  the  wifclom  of  mtrij  that  is,  the  reafonings  or  ar- 
guings  of  men.     Now  this  leans  only  and  entirely  on  thefe. 

o.  This  faith  is,  in  way  of  duty,  required  of  many.  Many 
are  in  duty  obliged  to  receive  the  fcriptures  as  the  word  of  God, 
to  whom  thefe  arguments  were  never  offered.  The  apoflles 
never  made  ufe  of  them,  and  yet  required  thejr  hearers  to  re- 
ceive and  believe  their  word. 

4.  This  faith  many  are  obliged  to,  who  are  not  capable  of 
uaderftanding  or  reaching  the  force  of  thefe  arguments. 

Prop.  V.  *^  The  faith  of  the  fcripture's  divine  authority  is 
**  not  founded  in  this.  That  they  by  whom  thev  were  written, 
**  did,  by  miracles,  prove  they  were  fent  of  God." 

I  need  not  fpend  much  time  in  clearing  this.  It  will  fuflR- 
ciently  conRrm  it  to  obferve, 

1.  That  many  are,  and  were  in  duty  obliged  to  yield  thl^ 
affent  to,  and  believe  the  fcriptures,  who  faw  not  thefe  miracles. 

2.  We  are  no  other  way  fure  of  thefe  being  wrought,  than 
by  the  teftimony  of  the  word. 

3.  This  way  is  not  countenanced  by  the  word  :  for  it  no 
where  teaches  us  to  e\'pe6l  miracles  as  the  ground  of  our  alTent, 
but  upon  the  contrary  declares,   that  the  word  of  Mofes  and  the 

prophets 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  439 

prophets  is  fufficlent  to  lay  a  foundation  for  faith,  without  any 
new  miracle,   (Luke  x.  31,) 

Prop.  VI.  "  The  reafon  whereon,  in  duty  we  are  bound 
**  to  receive  the  fcriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  is  not  any  pri- 
"  vate  voice,  whifper  or  fuggeftion  from  the  Spirit  of  God, 
**  feparate  and  diinn6t  from  the  written  word,  faying  in  our 
**  ear,  or  fuggefting  to  our  mind,  that  the  fcriptures  are  the 
"   word  of  God." 

There  is  no  need  to  infift  long  in  proof  of  this.     For, 

1.  Many  are  bound  to  believe  the  word  of  God,  to  whom  ne- 
ver any  fuch  teftimony  was  given  :  but  no  man  is  bound  to  re- 
ceive the  fcriptures,  to  whom  the  ground  whereon  he  is  bound 
to  beh'eve  them,  is  not  propofed. 

2.  There  is  no  where  in  the  word,  any  ground  given  for  any 
fuch  teftimony.  Nor  doth  the  experience  of  any  of  the  Lord's 
people  witnefs,  that  they  are  acquainted  with  any  fuch  fuggef- 
tion. And  befides,  the  queftion  might  again  be  moved  con- 
cerning this  fuggeftion,  Wherefore  do  ye  believe  this  to  be  the 
teftimony  of  God  ? 

Prop.  VIL  **  That  whereon  all,  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
**  comes,  are  bound  to  receive  it  with  the  faith  above  defcribed, 
"  is  not  any  particular  word  of  the  fcripture  bearing  tefiim.ony 
**  to  all  the  reii.  As  for  inftance,  it  is  not  merely  or  primarily 
*'  upon  this  account,  that  I  am  bound  to  receive  all  the  writleu 
**  word  as  the  word  of  God,  becaufe  the  fcripture  fays,  2  Tim. 
*'  iii.  16.  That  all  fcripture  is  given  by  infpiration  of  God," 

This  is  very  plain  upon  many  accounts,  fome  of  which  I 
fhall  fhortly  offer. 

1.  We  had  been  obliged  to  believe  the  fcriptures  with  faith 
fupernatural,  though  thefe  teftimonies  had  been  left  out.  Yea 
they  who  had  them  not,  were  obliged  to  believe  the  word  of 
God. 

2.  Thefe  have  no  more  evidence  of  their  being  from  God, 
than  oth€r  places  of  fcriptures  :  and  therefore  we  are  not  to 
believe  the  fcriptures  merely  on  their  teftimony  ;  but  have  the 
fam.e  reafon  to  receive  with  faith  as  the  word  of  God,  every 
part  of  the  fcripture  as  well  as  thefe  teflimonies. 

Prop.  VIIL  *'  The  reafon  why  we  are  bound,  with  faitli 
**  fupernatural  and  divine,  to  receive  the  word  of  Cod,  ii  not, 

"   tiiat 


440  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

**  that  the  things  therein  revealed,  or  the  matters  of  the  fcrlp- 

**  tures,  are  fuitable  unto  the  apprehenfions   v/hich    men   natu- 

**  rally  have  of  God,  themfelves  and    other   things,  and  con - 

**  s^ruous   to  the  interefts,  neceffities,  denres  and   capacities  of 

*'  men." 

I  (Iiall  not  fpend  time  in  overthrowing  this,  which  fome  feem 
io  fond  of ;  only  for  confirming  the  proportion  obferve, 

1.  This  fuitablenefs  of  the  matter  unto  the  apprehenfions,  or 
natural  notions  of  men  concerning  God,  themfelves  and  other 
thino^s,  &c.  as  difcerned  by  men  unrenewed,  and  made  out  by 
their  reafonings,  is  not  a  ground  for  faith,  or  an  afient  to  teflimo- 
ny,  but  for  a  perfuafion  of  another  fort. 

2.  There  are  many  things  revealed  in  the  fcripture,  which 
are  to  any  mere  natural  man  no  way  capable  of  this  character. 
No  man  receives,  or  can  reafonabiy  receive  on  this  account,  the 
dod^rine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  like.  It  Is  true,  thefe  are  not 
contrarv  to  our  reafon  :  but  it  is  likewife  true,  they  have  no  fuch 
evident  congruity  to  the  notions  our  reafon  luggefts  of  God,  as 
ihould  engage  us  to  receive  the  difcovery  as  from  God;  yea  on 
the  contrary,  there  is  a  feeming  inconfiflency  that  has  Oartled 
many. 

Prop.  IX.  "  When  therefore  it  is  inquired.  Wherefore 
**  do  ye  believe,  and  by  faith  reft  in  the  fcriptures  as  the  word 
"  of  God,  and  not  of  man?  We  do  not  anfwer,  It  is  becaufe 
*'  God  has  given  us  an  ability  fo  to  do  ;  becaufe  the  church 
*'  fays,  It  is  the  word  of  God  ;  becaufe  there  are  many  llrong 
"  moral  arguments  proving  it  fo  ;  becaufe  they  who  wrote  it, 
•*  wroui>^ht  miracles  ;  becaufe  God  has  by  fome  voice  whifpered 
*'  in  our  ear,  or  fecretly  fuggefted  it  to  us,  that  this  is  the  word 
*'  of  God  ;  or  becaufe  there  are  particular  fcriptures  which  bear 
**  witnefs  to  all  the  reft  that  they  are  of  God  ;  nor  finally,  be- 
**  caufe  the  matter  therein  revealed,  feem  worthy  of  God  to  our 
'•'  reafon." 

This  is  the  fum  of  what  has  been  hitherto  cleared  :  and  the 
rcafons  offered  againft  all  thefe,  whether  we  take  them  fepa- 
lately  or  conjunctly-  They  prove,  that  not  one  of  them,  nor 
all  taken  together,  are  the  form.al  reafon  whereon  we  are  obli- 
ged to  believe  the  word  of  God,  or  receive  it  with  faiUi  fuper- 
iiatural  and  divine. 

PROPr 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE    FAITH.  441 

Prop.  X.  **  The  formal  reafon  or  ground  whereon  I  alTent 
**  to,  or  receive  the  whole  fcrlptures,  and  every  p:^rtlcular 
**  truth  in  them,  and  am  obliged  in  duty  To  to  do,  is,  the  au- 
*'  thority  and  truth  of  God  fpeaking  in  them,  and  fpeaking  eve- 
**  ry  truth  they  contain,  evidencing  itfelf  to  my  faith,  when 
**  duly  exercifed  about  them,  and  attending  to  them,  by  their 
**  own  divine  and  diftingullhing  light  and  power.  Or  v/hsn  it 
**  is  inquired,  Wherefore  do  ye  believe,  receive,  afl'ent  to, 
**  and  reft  in  the  fcrlptures  as  indeed  the  word  of  God,  and 
*'  not  of  man?  I  anfwer,  I  do  believe  them,  becaufe  they  car- 
**  ry  in  them,  to  my  faith,  an  evidence  of  God,  or  do  evidence 
**  themfelves  by  their  own  light  and  power  to  my  faith,  duly 
**  exercifed  about  them,  that  ihey  are  the  word  of  God,  and  not 
*'  of  man." 

Now  for  explaining  this,  which  is  the  aflertion  that  contains 
the  truth  principally  intended,  I  Ihali  offer  the  few  following 
■remarks  : 

1.  However  great  the  evidence  of  God  in  the  word  is,  yet  it 
cannot,  nor  is  it  requifite  that  it  fhould,  determine  any  to  re- 
ceive and  aflent  to  it,  whofe  faith  and  ability  of  believing  is  not 
duly  difpofed.  Though  the  fun  fhine  never  fo  clearly,  yet  he 
that  has  no  eyes,  or  whofe  eyes  are  vitiate,  and  under  any  total 
darkening  indifpofition,  fees  it  not.  No  wonder  then,  that 
they,  who  have  not  naturally,  and  to  whom  God  has  not  yet,  by 
fupernatural  grace,  given  eyes  to  fee,  ears  to  hear,  or  hearts  to 
perceive,  difcern  not  the  evidence  of  God's  authority  and  truth 
in  the  word. 

2.  Although  there  really  may  be  in  any  an  ability,  or  faith 
capable  of  difcerning  this  evidence  ;  yet  if  that  faith  is  not  ex- 
ercifed, and  duly  applied  to  the  confideration  of  the  word, 
whereon  this  evidence  is  impreffed,  he  cannot  affent  unto,  or 
believe  it  in  a  due  manner,  to  the  glory  of  God,  hisowu  faiva- 
tion,  and  according  to  his  duty.  There  is  evidence  fufficient 
in  many  moral,  metaphyseal  and  mathematical  truths  ;  and 
yet  abundance  of  perfons,'who  are  fufficiently  capable  of  it, 
60  not  affent  unto  thefe  truths,  nor  difcern  this  evidence  :  not 
becaufe  it  is  wanting,  but  becaufe  thsy  do  not  apply  their  minds 
to  the  obfervation  of  it  in  a  due  way.  God  has  not  imparted 
fuch  an  evidence  to  his  word,  as  the  light  of  the  fun  has,  which 
forces  an  acknowledgement  of  itfelf  upon  any,  whofe  eyes  are 
not  wilfully  ihut  :  but  dciigning  to  put  us  to  duty,  he  has  im- 
parted fuch  evidence,  as  they,  who  have  eyes  to  fee,  if  accord- 

1  i  i  ins 


442  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

ing  to  duty  they  apply  their  minds,  niay  difcern,'  and  be  fatls- 
fied  by. 

3.  This  li^ht  and  pr>wer  evidencing  the  divine  authority  of 
the  fcripiures,  is  really  impreOed  upon  every  truth,  or  every 
u'ord  which  God  fpeaki  to  us,  efpecially  as  it  ftands  in  its  own 
place,  related  to,  and  conne6led  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
I'cripture,  whereto  it  belongs.     But  of  this  more  hereafter. 

4.  When  ,to  the  queftion,  Wherefore,  or  on  what  grounds 
do  i  affent  to  the  fcriptures  as  indeed  the  word  of  God  and  not 
of  man?  it  is  anfwered,  I  do  it,  bccaufe  it  evidences  itfeif 
to  be  God's  word  by  its  own  light  or  power,  there  is  no  place  for 
that  captious  queftion,  How  know  ye  this  light  and  power  to  be 
divine,  or  from  God  ?  For,  it  is  of  the  nature  of  ail  light,  ex- 
ternal and  fenhbie,  or  internal  and  mental,  (concerning  which 
two  it  is  hard  to  determine  which  ot  them  is  properly,  and 
which  only  metaphoricallv,  light)  that  it  not  only  clears  to  the 
mind  other  things  difcernible  by  it,  but  fatisfies  the  mind  about 
itfeif,  proportionably  to  the  degree  of  its  clearnefs.  The  light 
of  the  fun  difcovers  fenfible  obje^ls,  and  fatlfiies  us  fo  fully 
about  itfeif,  that  we  need  have  recourfe  to  no  new  arguments  to 
convince  us  that  we  have  this  light,  and  that  it  is  real.  In  like 
manner  the  evidence  of  any  mathematical  truth,  not  only  quiets 
iifi  about  the  truth,  but  makes  the  mind  reft  allured  about  itfeif. 
And  fo  the  divine  light  and  power  of  the  word,  not  only  fatis- 
fies our  minds,  as  to  thofe  truths  they  are  defigned  of  God  to 
difcover,  but,  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  light  in  them,  or 
conveyed  by  thern,  fatisfy  the  mind  about  this  light  or  power, 
that  it  is  truth  and  is  ?20  lie.  Nor  is  there  need  for  any  other 
argument  to  convince  a  mind  affe6!ed  with  this,  of  it.  It  is 
true,  if  a  blind  man  fl^.ould  fay  fo  to  me.  How  know  ye  that 
the  fun  {hines,  and  ye  fee  it  ?  I  would  anfwer,  1  know  it  by  the 
evidence  of  its  own  light  aiFe<Siing  mine  eyes  :  And  if  he  fhould 
further  fay,  But  how  prove  ye  to  me,  that  ye  aie  not  deluded, 
that  really  it  is  (o?  Then  I  would  be  obliged  to  produce  other 
arguments  v^hereof  he  is  capable  :  but  then  it  mufi  be  allowed 
that  the  evidence  of  thefe  arguments  is  not  fo  great  as  the  evi- 
dence I  jTiyfelf  have  of  it  by  its  ovv'n  light  ;  though  they  may 
be  more  convincing  to  him.  And  further,  this  is  not  to  con- 
vince myfelf,  but  to  {^uisfy  him,  and  free  my  mind  from  the 
difturbance  of  his  objections.  In  like  manner,  if  one,  that 
denies  the  fcriptures,  thall  fav,  Wherefore  do  ye  believe  or  rcfl 
ia  the  fcriptures  as  the  word  of  God  't  I  anfwe.-,  I  do  it,  becaufe 

ihev 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  443 

they  evidence  thcmfelvcs  to  my  mind,  by  their  own  light,  or 
pov/er,  to  be  of  God.  If  he  (liall  fay,  I  cannot  difcern  this. 
I  anhver,  It  is  becauie  your  mind  is  darkened,  ye  want  eyes,  or 
have  them  Chut,  If  he  iliail  further  urge,  That  my  light  is  not 
real,  I  will  prove  it  by  arguments,  which  may  ftop  his  mouth, 
and  be  more  convincing  to  him  than  mvafiertion,  which  is  all 
that  hitherto  he  has;  but  yet  thefe  arguments  are  not  that  where- 
on my  mind  refls  faiisfied  as  to  the  truth  ;  though  they  may  be 
of  great  ufe,  not  only  to  convince  him,  but  to  relieve  my  mind 
againll  luch  fubtiie  fophifms,  as  he  might  make  ufe  of,  which 
though  they  could  not  perfuade  me  out  of  the  fight  of  my  eyes, 
or  the  evidence  ihining  into  my  mind,  yet  troubled  me  hov/  to 
anfwer  them,  and  at  times,  when,  through  my  inadvertency,  or 
indifpodtion  of  my  eyes,  or  through  clouds  overfpreading  and 
interporing  betwixt  this  light  and  me,  thefe  objections  might 
fhake  me  a  little. 

5.  Contidering  we  are  but  renewed  in  part,  and  our  faith 
is  impcrfiTCt.  and  liable  to  many  defects,  the  miniftry  of  the 
church  is  of  manifold  neceffity  and  ufe,  to  awaken  us  to  attend 
to  this  light,  to  cure  the  indifpofitions  of  our  minds,  to  hold  up 
this  light  to  us,  to  point  out  and  explain  the  truths  it  difcovers, 
whereby  our  minds  are  made  more  fenfible  of  the  evidence  of 
this  light.  And  upon  many  other  accounts  of  a  like  nature, 
are  the  ordinances  neceffary,  and  through  the  efl^icacy  of  the 
divine  ordination  and  appointment,  ufcful  for  eftablillriing  our 
minds,  naturally  lluggifh,  dark,  weak  and  unftable,  and  which 
are  expofed  to  manifold  temptations,  in  the  faith  of  the  fcrip- 
tures. 

6.  In  order  to  our  holding  fail  our  faith,  and  being  ftable  in 
it,  betides  this  outward  miniliry,  and  the  inward  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  giving  us  an  underHanding  to  difcern  this  evi- 
dence, and  befides  the  forementioned  ufe  of  the  moral  argu- 
ments above-mentioned  ;  befides  all  thefe,  to  our  believing  and 
perfevering  in  a  due  manner,  in  the  faith  of  the  fcriptures,  we 
ftand  in  need  of  the  daily  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  ta 
flrengthen  our  faith  or  ability  of  difcerning  fpiritual  things,  to 
clear  our  minds  of  prejudices,  and  incidental  indilpofitions,  to 
i'eal  the  truths  on  ouf  tpinds,  and  give  us  refreihing  taltes  of 
them,  and  con^rm  us  many  ways  againft  opnofitiou. 

7.  This  light,  whereby  the  written  word  evidences  itfelf  un^ 
to  the  minds  of  thofe  who  have  fpiritual  ears  to  hear,  and  ap- 
ply them,  is  nothing  cife  fave  the  imprefs  cf  the  majedy,  truth, 

omni- 


444  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

omnlicience,  wifdom,  holinefs,  juftice,  grace,  mercy,  and  au- 
thority of  God,  ftamped  upon  the  fcripturesby  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
and  beaming  or  fhining  info  the  minds  of  fuch  perfons  upon 
their  hearing  or  peruial,  and  affecting  them  with  a  (enk  of  the(e 
perfettions,  both  in  what  is  fpoken,  and  in  the  majeftic  and 
God  becoming  way  of  fpeaking  :  they  fpeak  as  never  ^nan/pake  ; 
the  m  itter  fpoken,  and  the  manner  of  fpeaking,  has  a  great- 
jnefs  difcernible  by  a  fpiritual  underftanding,  that  fully  falisfies 
it,  that  God  is  the  fpeaker.  And  ail  the  impreffions  of  God's 
wifdom,  faithfulnefs,  omnifcience  and  majefty,  that  are  ftamped 
upon  the  matter  contained  in  the  fcripturcs,  being  conveyed  only 
by  the  word,  do  join  the  impreffions  that  are  upon  the  word,  and 
ftrengthen  the  evidence  they  give  of  their  divine  original,  fince 
thefe  impreffions  do  not  otherwife  appear  to  our  minds,  or  af- 
fect them,  than  by  the  word.  The  v/ord,  by  a  God-becoming 
manifi^flation  of  the  truth,  that  fcorns  all  thefe  little  and  mean 
arts  of  infmuation,  by  fair  and  enticing  words,  and  artincially 
drefled  up  argumentations,  with  other  the  like  confefTions  of 
human  weaknefs,  that  are  In  all  human  writings,  commends  it- 
felf  to  the  confcience,  dives  into  the  fouls  of  men,  into  all  the 
fecret  leceflTes  of  their  hearts,  guides,  teaches,  dire^s,  deter- 
mines and  judges  in  them,  and  upon  them,  in  the  name,  ma- 
jefjy  and  authority  of  God.  And  when  it  enters  thus  into  the 
foul,  it  fills  it  v/ith  the  light  of  the  glory  of  the  beamings  of 
thofe  perfeclions  upon  it,  v/hereby  it  is  made  to  cry  out,  Th^ 
voice  of  God  and  not  of  man, 

8.  This  power,  whereby  the  word  evidences  itfelf  to  be  the 
word  of  God  and  not  of  man,  is  nothing  elfe  fave  that  authori- 
ty and  awful  efficacy,  which  he  puts  forth  in  and  by  It  over  the 
minds  and  confciences  of  men,  working  divinely,  and  leaving 
cfFe6ls  of  his  glorious  and  omnipotent  power  in  tliem  and  on 
them.  It  enters  into  the  confcience,  a  territory  exempt  from 
the  authority  of  creatures,  and  fubjccl  only  to  the  dominion  of 
God,  it  challenges,  convinces,  threatens,  awakens,  fets  it  a 
roaring,  and  the  creation  cannot  quiet  it  again.  It  commands 
a  calm,  and  the  fea,  that  was  troubled  before,  is  fmooth,  and 
devils  and  men  are  not  able  to  dii^urb  its  repofe.  If  enters  into 
the  mind,  opens  its  eyes,  fills  it  with  a  glorious,  clear,  pure 
and  purifying  light,  and  fets  before  it  wonders,  before  unknown, 
uiidifcerned  in  counfel  and  knowledge,  concerning  God,  our- 
ielves,  our  fin,  our  duty,  oar  daiger,  and  our  relief,  the 
works,  (he  ways,  the  counfcls  ar.<i  purpoies  of  God.     It  fpeaks 

to 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  445 

to  the  will,  converts  it,  and  powerfully  difengages  it  from 
what  it  was  nrioft  engaged  to,  what  it  ennbraced,  and  was  even 
glued  to  before,  fo  that  no  art  or  force  of  eloquence,  argument, 
fear  or  hope,  could  make  it  quit  its  hold  ;  it  makes  it  haftiiy 
quit  its  embraces,  and  turn  its  bent  another  way,  the  quite  op- 
pofite,  and  with  open  arms  embrace  what  nothing  could  make 
it  look  to  before,  takes  away  its  averfion,  makes  it  willingly 
not  only  go,  but  run  after  what  it  bore  the  greateft  averfion  to 
before,  and  obtlinately  refufe  to  clofe  with  any  other  thing.  It 
enters  the  afteftions,  makes  them  rife  from  the  ground,  gives 
them  fuch  a  divine  touch,  that,  though  they  may  through  their 
fickle  nature,  be  carried  at  a  time  by  force  another  way,  yet 
they  never  reft,  but  point  heaven-ward.  It  comes  to  the  foul, 
funk  under  the  preffure  of  unrelievable  dillrelTes,  fticking  in 
the  miry  clay,  refufing  comfort,  and  in  appearance  capable  of 
none,  it  plucks  it  out  of  the  clay,  raifes  it  out  of  the  horrible 
pit,  fets  its  Jeet  upon  a  rock,  fills  it  with  joy,  yea  makes  it  ex- 
ceeding joyful,  while  even  all  outward  prefiures  and  tribulation 
continue,  yea  are  increafed.  It  enters  into  the  foul,  lays  hold 
on  the  reigning  lufls,  to  which  all  formerly  had  fubmitted,  and 
that  with  delight;  it  tries  and  condemns  thofe  pov/erful  crimi- 
nals, makes  the  foul  throw  off  the  yoke,  and  join  in  the  execu- 
tion of  its  fentcnce  againfl,  and  on  them.  Now  where  the  cafe 
is  thus  dated,  how  can  the  foul,  that  feels  this  powerful  word, 
that  comes  from  the  Lord  moft  High,  do  ctherwife  than  jdl 
dozvn,  and  own.  That  God  is  in  it  of  a  truth, 

9.  Whereas  fome  may  hereon  objedl,  **  That  many,  who 
**  have  for  a  longtime  heard  and  perufed  this  word,  have  not 
"  perceived  this  light,  nor  felt  this  power,  and,  on  this  fuppo- 
**  lition,  feemed  exempted  from  any  obligation  to  believe  the 
"  word."     I  anfwer, 

(i.)  Many  who  have  fpent  not  a  few  years  in  prying  into  the 
works  of  God  in  the  world,  have  not  difcerned  to  this  day  the 
beaming  evidence,  and  clear  declarations  of  his  glory  in  them  ; 
yet  none  will  hereon  fay,  that  they  are  excufable,  or  that 
want  of  an  evidence  is  chargeable  on  the  works  of  God.  And 
why  fnould  not  the  cafe  be  allowed  the  fame  as  to  the  word  V 
May  they  not  have  this  evidence,  though  men  do  not  difcern  it  ? 
And  may  not  men,  even  on  account  of  this  evidence  be  obliged 
to  believe  them  ? 

No  wonder  many  difcern  not  this  light,  and  are  not  affet^ed 
with  it,  fmce  all  men  have  put  out  their  ovi^n  eyes,  or  impaired 

by 


446  AN   ESSAY    CONCERNING 

by  their  own  fault,  that  faitli  or  power  of  difcerning  the  voice 
of  God,  fpeaking  either  by  his  word  or  works,  which  our  na- 
tures originally  had.  In  many  this  evil  is  increafed,  and  this 
power  further  weakened  by  their  fhutting  their  eyes,  and  en- 
tertaining of  prejudices,  manifeftly  unjurt,  againft  God's  word 
and  works.  Others  turn  away  their  eyes,  and  will  not  look  to, 
cr  attend  to  the  word  in  that  way  wherein  God  ordains  ihem  to 
attend  to  it,  that  they  may  difcern  iis  light,  and  feel  its  power. 
And  God  has  hereon  judicially  given  many  up  to  the  power  of 
Satan,  to  be  uirther  blinded.  And  no  wonder  they,  whofe  eyes 
the  god  of  this  luorld  has  bhnd^dt  fhould  not  difcern  the  glorv 
of  the  golpei  of  Chrill,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  Jhining  into 
their  mindS' 

(3.)  No  wonder  thev  fhoul  I  not  difcern  this  ;  for  God  to  this 
day  has  not  given  them  eyes  to  fee^  ears  to  hear,  or  hearts  to 
perceive*  It  is  an  att  of  sovereign  grace,  which  God  owes  to 
none,  to  open  their  eyes,  which  they  have  wilfully  ulinded:  and 
where  he  fees  not  meet  to  do  this,  it  is  not  It  range,  that  they 
are  not  afie6^ied  with  the  cleareft  evidence, 

(4.)  Light,  however  clear,  cannot  of  itfelf  fupplv  the  di- 
fe6l  of  the  difcerning  power.  The  fun,  thou<:rh  it  ihines,  c.n- 
not  make  the  blind  to  iee.  The  word  has  this  light  in  it,  though 
the  blind  fee  it  not  ;  yea  I  may  adventure  to  fay,  that  the  word 
of  God  contained  in  the  fcriptures,  which  he  has  magnified  above 
all  his  name,  has  in  it  more,  and  no  lefsdifcernibie  evidences 
of  the  divine  perfe6lions,  and  confequently  of  its  divine  origi- 
nal and  authority,  than  the  works  of  creation,  fome  of  which 
are  fufficient  to  carry  in  fome  convit^on  of  God  in  it,  even  on 
the  n)inds  of  thofe  who  are  not  favingly  enlightened,  if  they  at- 
tend but  to  it  in  the  due  exercife  of  their  rational  abilities,  that 
isj  in  fuch  a  manner  as  they  do,  or  may  attend  to  it,  without 
favlog  illumination,  laying  afide  wilful  prejudice;  which  though 
it  will  not  be  fufficient  to  draw  fuch  an  ailent,  as  will  engage 
and  enable  them  to  receive  the  fcriptures,  in  a  due  manner,  to 
the  glory  of  God,  and  their  own  falvation,  and  comply  with 
them,  yet  1  conceive  it  will  be  fufficient  to  juftify  againft  them 
the  word's  claim  to  a  divine  original,  and  cut  them  oii"  from  any 
ufe  of,  or  excufe  from  a  plea  of  the  want  of  fufficient  evidence 
of  the  divine  original  of  the  word.  1  doubt  not,  but  many  of 
thefe,  who  upon  conviflion  faid,  that  Chrifl  fpake  as  never  ?7iafi 
fpake,  were  (hangers  to  faving  iiluminaJion,  and  yet  faw  fome- 
what  of  a  fiamp  and  imprefs  of  divinity  in  what  he  faid,  andt'he 

manner 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  447 

manner  of  faying  it,  that  drew  this  confeffion  from  them,  that 
rendered  them  iuexcufable,  in  not  llftening  to  him,  and  comply- 
ing with  his  word.  Yea  I  doubt  not,  that  the  cafe  will  be  found 
the  fame  as  to  many,  with  refpe<St  to  the  written  word,  and  would 
be  fo  to  ail,  if  they  feriou{ly>  and  without  wilful  prejudices,  at- 
tended to  it. 

10.  I  further  obferve.  That  to  engage  to  this  aflent,  it  is  not 
rcquifite,  that  every  one  feel  all  thefe,  or  the  like  particular 
effects  at  all  times,  but  that  the  word  have  this  power,  and  put 
it  forth,  as  occafion  needs,  and  circumfiances  require  it. 

Having  thus  explained,  we  are  now  to  prove  our  affertion, 
**  That  the  ground  whereon  we  are  in  duty  bound  to  believe 
**  and  receive  the  word  of  God  as  his  word,  and  not  the  word 
**  of  man,  and  whereon  all  who  have  received,  and  believed  it 
**  in  a  due  manner,  to  the  glory  of  God  and  their  own  falvation, 
**  do  receive  it  thus,  is  the  authority  and  veracity  of  God  ipeak- 
*'  ing  in  and  by  the  word,  and  evidencing  themfelves  by  that 
**  light  and  power,  which  is  conveyed  into  the  foul  in  and  by 
**   the  fcriptures,  or  the  written  word  itfelf." 

Many  arguments  offer  themfelves  for  proof  of  this  important 
affertion,  which  hiiherto  we  have  explained  ;  fome  of  the  mofl 
confiderable  of  them  I  ihall  ft  ortly  propcfe,  without  infOing 
largely  on  the  profecution,  deligning  only  to  hint  the  argu- 
ments that  fatisfied  me,  that  I  was  not  miftaken  as  to  the  grounds 
whereon,  by  the  forementioned  experience,  I  was  brought  lo 
receive  the  fcriptures  as  the  word  of  God. 

Aig.  I.  God  ordinarily  in  the  fcriptures  offers  his  mind,  re- 
quiring u's  to  believe,  obey  and  fubmit  to  it  upon  this  and  no 
ether  ground,  viz.  the  evidence  of  his  own  teflimony.  The 
only  reafon  commonly  infifted  on  to  warrant  our  faith,  oblige 
us  to  believe  and  receive,  is,   Thus  faith  the  Lord. 

Arg.  2.  When  faife  prophets  fet  up  their  pretended  revela- 
tions in  competition  with  his  word,  hf-  remits  them  to  the  evi- 
dence his  words  gave  by  their  own  light  and  power,  as  that 
which  was  fufficient  to  diftirguiOi  and  enable  them  to  reject  the 
falfe  pretenfions,  and  cleave  to  his  word,  Jer.  xxiii.  26, — 29. 
How  long  fliall  this  be  in  the  heart  of  the  p7'ophets  that  prophefy 
lies  f  Ihat  are  prophets  of  the  deceit  of  their  own  hearts  ;  which 
think  to  caufe  my  people  to  forget  my  name  by  their  dreams^ 
which  thty  tell  every  man  to  his  neiphbour,  as  their  fathers  have 
forgotten  m.y  name  for  BaaL  The  prophet  that  hath  a  dream, 
let  him  tell  a  dreamt  and  he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  Jp-'ak 

my 


448  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

my  word  faithfully :  JVhat  is  the  chaff  to  thewhmt,  faith  the 
Lord?  Is  not  my  word  like  a  fire,  jaith  the  Lord,  and  like  a 
hammer  that  breaketh  the  mountains  in  pieces  ?  In  the  laltcr 
days  of  that  church,  wlven  the  people  were  mofi  errjinently  per- 
plexed with  fajfe  prophets,  both  as  to  their  nimiber  and  fubtilty, 
yet  God  lays  their  eternal  and  temporal  fafety  or  ruin,  on  their 
dilcerning  aright  between  his  wdrd,  and  that  which  was  only 
pretended  lb  to  be.  And  that  they  might  not  complain  of  this 
irupofition,  he  tenders  them  fccurity  of  its  eaiincfs  of  perform- 
arjce:  fpeaking  of  his  own  word  comparatively  as  to  every  thing 
that  is  not  fo,  he  fays,  It  is  as  wheat  to  chaff',  which  miy  in- 
fallibly, by  being  what  it  is,  be  difcerned  from  it  ;  and  then 
abfolutely  that  it  hath  fuch  properties,  as  that  it  will  difcover 
itfelf,  even  light,  heat,  and  power.  A  perfon  divinely  infpir- 
ed  was  to  be  attended  to  for  no  other  reafon,  but  the  evidence 
of  the  word  of  God,  diftinguiPning  itfelf  from  the  pretended  re- 
velations, and  fatisfying  the  mind  about  it,  by  its  light  and 
power. 

Arg.  3.  When  further  evidence,  as  that  of  miracles,  is  de- 
manded, as  ncceffary  to  induce  them  that  are  unbelievers  to  re- 
ceive and  believe  the  word,  it  is  refufed,  as  what  was  not  in  the 
judgment  of  God  needful,  and  would  not  be  effectual  ;  and  un- 
believers are  remitted  to  the  felf-evidence  of  the  word,  as  that 
which  would  fatisfy  them,  if  any  thing  would.  This  our  Lord 
teaches  clearly  in  the  parable  of  Lazarus  and  the  rich  man,  Luke 
:<vi.  27.  to  the  end.  The  rich  man  being  difappointed  as  to  any' 
relief  to  himfelf,in  the  preceding  verfes,  isdefirousof  preventing 
the  ruin  of  his  brethren,  and  for  this  end  is  concerned  to  have 
them  induced  to  believe.  To  which  purpofe  he  propofes,  ver.  27, 
the  fending  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  to  certify  them  of  the  reality 
of  eternal  things  ;  J  pray  thee  therefore  Father,  fays  he  to  Abra- 
ham, that  woiadft  find  him  to  my  Jathers  kovfe  :  for  I  have  five 
brethren  ;  tJiat  he  may  teffy  unto  them,  lejl  they  afo  come  to  this 
place  of  torment*  Abraham  faith  unto  him, They  ha,ve  Mofes  and  the 
prophets,  let  them  hear  them.  And  he  [aid.  Nay,  father  Abraham  ; 
but  if  one  zvent  unto  them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.  And  he 
f aid  unto  him,  f  they  hear  not  Mofes  and  the  prophets,  neither  toill 
they  be  pafuaded,  though  one  rojefrom  the  dead*  Here  the  cafe 
is  plain.  The  rich  man  defires  a  miracle  to  fatisfy  his  brethren. 
This  is  refufjjd,  and  they  are  remitted  to  Moles  and  the  pro- 
phets, as  what  was  fufhcient.  He  inliRs,  atsd  thinks  a  miracle 
would  be  more  fatisfying.     This  is  (11 11  refufed,  and  it  is  ph^in- 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  449 

]y  taught,  That  where  the  evidence  of  the  word  of  God  will 
not  induce  or  perfuade  to  believe,  the  wo(\  uncomrnon  miracles 
would  not  do  it. 

Arg.  4.  When  the  quedion  isccnfidered  particularly,  i  Cor. 
xiv.  What  gifts  were  mcft  to  the  ufe  of  the  church,  the  mira- 
culous gifts  of  tongues,  &c.  cr  the  ordinary  gift  of  prophec}'', 
or  preaching  of  the  word  ?  this  !aft  is  preferred,  as  what  was  not 
only  more  ufefui  for  the  edification  of  believers,  but  for  inducing 
unbelievers  to  receive  the  word,  and  fubmit  to  it;  and  the  v/ay 
wherein  it  does  this^  is  mentioned,  which  is  no  other  than  by 
its  evidencing  itfelf  upon  its  naked  propofal,  in  preaching,  by 
its  own  light  and  power.  Let  the  whole  palTage  be  copfidered 
from  ver.  22,  but  efpecially  ver.  24,  25.  But  i/ali propke/y,  and 
there  come  in  one  that  believeth  not,  or  unharntd^  he  is  convinced 
of  ally  he  IS  judged  of  all :  And  thus  are  the  Jccrets  of  his  htart 
made  manijej}.,  and fo  falling  dozen  on  hisjace^  he  will  worfkip 
Qodf  and  report,  that  God  is.  in  you  of  a  truth, 

Arg.  5.  The  conftant  pra6tice  of  the  apoftles  fully  proves 
our  alTertion.  The  way  they  took  to  perfuade  the  unbelieving 
world  to  receive  the  gofpel,  was  not  by  propofing  the  argu- 
ments commonly  infifted  upon  now,  for  proving  the  truth  of 
their  dotlrine,  nor  working,  nor  infixing  upon  miracles 
wrought  by  them,  for  confirmation  of  the  truth,  but  by  a  hare 
propofal  oi  the  truth,  and  a  fincere  manifedation  of  it  to  con- 
fciences,  in  the  name  of  God, they  proceeded,  and  demanded  ac- 
ceptance of  it,  as  the  word  of  God  and  not  of  man ;  and  by 
this  means  they  converted  the  world.  And  when  they  did  re- 
i\\i<z  it,  thus  propofed,  they  fiook  off  the  diift  of  their  feet  for  a 
tejlimony  againfl  them,  and  fo  laid  them  open  to  that  awful 
tlireatening  of  our  Lord,  of  punilhments  more  intolerable  then 
thefe  of  Sodom  and  Gommorrah. 

Arg.  5.  The  experience  of  thofe  who  do  believe  aright, 
confirms  it  fully.  However  they  mav  be  relieved  againft  the 
objections,  and  capacitated  to  deal  with  adverfaries  by  other  ar- 
guments and  means,  yet  that  whereon  believers  of  al!  fcrts, 
learned  and  unlearned,  lean,  is  the  word  of  God  evidencing  it- 
felf unto  their  faith,  by  its  own  light  and  power.  The  unlearn- 
ed are  for  moft  part  Capable  of  no  other  evidence,  and  yet  upon 
this  alone,  in  all  ages,  in  life  and  death,  in  doing  and  fuiiering, 
they  have  evidenced  another  fort  of  (lability  and  firmneis  in 
cleaving  to  it,  and  fuffering  cheerfully  for  it,  on  this  account  on- 
ly, th^n  the  mod  learned,  who  were  beil:  furniilied  vvilh  ar^u- 

K  k  k  m.cnts 


450  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

ments  of  another  nature,  but  wanted  this:  and  indeed  if  this  is 
not  allowed  to  be  the  ground  of  faith,  there  can  be  no  divine 
faith  leaning  L^pon  a  divine  and  inf<;l'ibie  bottom  ;  and  the  vul- 
gar, v.ho  are  uncapable  of  any  other  evidence,  niufi  rove  in 
nnceriainty,  and  pi7i  iheir  faith  upon  thz  Jlceves  of  their  teach- 
ers :  but  bleffcd  be  God,  here  is  a  ground  fufficient  to  reft  on, 
that  will  not  fail.  He  fpeaks,  and  his  fneep,  noivvilhftanding 
that  fiinplicity,  which  makes  them  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of 
the  world,  know  his  voice,  hear  it,  andjoliozu  himy  and  will  not 
hear  the  voice  oj  a  ft  ranger* 

Prop.  XI.  **  Whereas  it  maybe  pretended,  tl^at  on  fup- 
**  pontion  of  what  has  been  now  ailcrted,  the  people  of  God,  at 
'*  times  when  they  difcern  not  this  li^lit,  feel  not  this  power, 
**  have  no  ground  for  their  faith,  with  rcfpett  unto  theie  paiTages 
**  or  portions  of  fcripture,  which  do  not  thus  evidence  ihen;- 
**  felves  to  be  from  God,  at  the  time  of  tlisir  perufai,  or  of  their 
**  hearing  of  them,  by  affecting  the  believer's  mind,  with  a 
*'  fenfe  of  this  divine  light  and  poiver.  In  oppontion  to  this 
**  objedion,  and  for  removing  the  ground  of  it,  1  ciier  the  foi- 
**  lowing  truth,  which  afterwards  i  Iball  clear.  That  there  is  no 
**  part  of  the  fcriptures,  in  fo  far  as  God  ipeaks  in  them,  bat 
**  doth  thus  fufHcienlly  evidence  its  authority  in  its  feafon,  unto 
**  perfons  capable  of  difcerning  it,  and  duly  applying  them- 
**  felves  in  the  way  of  the  Lord's  appointment,  in  io  far  as  they 
**  are  at  prefcnt  concerned  to  receive,  believe  and  obey  it,  in 
*'  compliance  with  tlicir  prefcnt  duty,  and  reach  the  meaning 
*'  of  the  propofitlon  in  and  by  the  ui'e  of  the  means  of  God's 
**  appointment." 

This  objeftion  has  fometimes  had  a  very  formidable  afpc-fl  to 
m.e,  and  therefore  1  Oiall  dillinctiy  propole,  fofar  as  the  brevity 
deii'>-ned  will  permit,  the  grounds  whereon  I  was  latished  about 
the  truth  propofed  in  oppofition  to  it,  in  the  following  explica- 
tory and  confirming  cbiervations,  referring  for  further  ciearmg, 
as  to  the  way  wherein  the  Lord  quieted  me,  and  relieved  me  of 
objeclions,  to  the  foregoing  chapter. 

f.  We  are  to  obferve,  that  feith,  or  that  power  in  man, 
xvhereby  he  alTents  to  truth  upon  teltimony,  is  corrupted,  as 
well  as  his  other  powers,  by  his  fall.  And  though  in  believers 
it  is  renewed,  they  receiving  an  undcrilanding,  whereby  they 
know  him  that  is  true,  and  hioio  his  voice  from  that  oj  ajiran- 
gcr,  yet  even  in  them  it  is  imperfe6t,  and  habitually  weak,  they 

being 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  45  ^ 

being  rcneived  but  in  part,  and  To  knowing  but  in  part,  as  it  is 
with  refpeft  to  his  other  powers,  lb  it  is  as  to  this.   And  befides 
this  habitual  weaknefs,  which  engages  them  to  cry  to  the  Lord 
daily  for  carryingon  the  zoork  of  faith  with  pozuer,znd  an  increale 
of  faith  to  believe  and  live  to  God  in  a  due  manner  ;  befides,  I  " 
fay,  this  habitual  weaknefs,  it  is  liable  to  various  extraordinary 
incidental  diforders,  arifnig  from  inward  and  outward  occafions, 
while   the  believer  is  here  in  this  valley  of  tears,  fubjeCt  unto 
the  miferies  occafioned  by  the  remaining   power  of  indwellinjj 
corruptions,  which  are  in   themfelves  reftlefs,  and   raife   many 
fogs,  damps  and  mifts  to  overcloud  the   foul  :  and   by  the  vio- 
lence of  outward  temptations,  wliich  Satan  and  the  world  throng 
in  upon  them,  through  the  wife  permiilion  of  God,  for  the  ex» 
ercife  of  their  faith  in  this  itate  of  trial,  the  darknefs  is  exceed- 
ingly increafed,  faith  weakened,  or  at  leaft  ftraitened  as  to  its 
exercife.     And  by  this  means  this  fpiritual  difcerning  is  iome- 
times  more,  and  fometimes  lefs  obftruded  and  darkened.    Now 
if  at  fuch  feafons,  while  the  believer  finds   himfetf  thus  out  of 
order,  he  cannot  difcern   this  evidence  of  the  divine  authority 
of  the  word,  i?o  not  where  it  ftiines  cleareft,  in  fo  far  as  to  quiet 
him,  he   has  no  reafon   to  reje6t  the   word,  or  queftion   it  for 
want  of  evidence,  but  may  be,  and  ordinarily  believers  are  ex- 
ercifed  in  complaints  of  their  own   darknefs,  as  the  caule  of 
their  not  difcerning  God   in   his  word  :   Vittum  efl   in   organo^ 
there  is  no  fault  in  the  word,  but  in  the  difcerning  power.  The 
argument,  if  it  be  urged   with  refpecl  to  fuch   a   cafe    as  this, 
would  prove  that  there  is  no  light  in  the  fun. 

2.  The  Lord's  people,  through  the  power  of  corruption, 
and  force  of  temptation,  are  often  negligent  and  inadvertent, 
and  do  not  apply  their  minds,  nor  incline  their  hearts  unto  the 
v/ord,  with  the  attention  neceifary  to  difcern  the  evidence  of 
God  in  the  word  ;  and  as  a  punilhmcnt  of  tliis,  God  withdraws, 
and  leaves  their  minds  under  the  darknefs  they  are  hereby  caft 
into,  and  then  when  God  palTes  by  before,  or  on  the  right  ox: 
left  handy  and  worketh  round  about  them,  they  cannot  perceive 
Jiim.  If  we  turn  our  back  to  the  light,  ilmt  our  eyes,  or  will 
not  be  at  pains  to  remove  motes,  or  humours  that  cbilrufl  our 
fight,  no  wonder  we  do  not  difcern  the  light.  When  we  have 
idols  in  our  hearts  and  eyes,  no  wonder  v/e  fee  not  God.  If 
we  lay  not  afide  the  filthinefs  of  our  hearts,  we  cannot  receivs 
the  ingrafted  zcord,  that  is  able  to  favc  our  fouls^  in  a  due 
manner* 

O..    Air 


452  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

3;  Although  the  whole  fcriptures  come  from  God,  sre  his 
word,  yet  every  propofjtlon  contained  in  them,  as  it  is  a  pro- 
pofition  in  itielf,  expreffive  of  luch  a  particular  purpole  or 
thoug;ht,  is  not  his  word  :  for  God  tells  us,  men's  v/ords,  and 
the  devil's  words.  Now  though  God  fpeaks  them  in  fo  far  as 
to  teach  us  that  they  are  fuch  pcrfon's  w^ords,  yet  the  propofi- 
tians  in  themfelves  are  not  to  be  received  with  faith  ;  but  we 
are  only  to  ailent  to  this  upon  the  authority  of  God,  that  they 
faid  {o  and  fo  ;  not  always  that  thefe  are  true  ;  for  oftentimes 
in  tlieinfelves  they  are  faife  and  pernicious.  Now,  evidence  as 
to  any  more  than  the  truth  of  God  in  the  hiftorical  narration  of 
theni,  is  not  to  be  expected,  nor  are  the  fcriptures  to  be  im- 
peached for  the  want  of  it, 

4.  Although  every  divine  truth  which  God  fpeaks,  has  equal 
authority,  and  fufficient  evidence,  yet  every  fcriptuie  trutii  has 
not  a  beaming  evidence,    equally   great,  clear  and   afietling. 
The  fcripture  is  like  the  heaven,  another  piece  of  divine  work- 
inaolhip.   It  is  full  of  Oars,  every  one  of  thefe  has  light  fufhcient 
to  anfwerits  own  particular  u(q  for  which  it  was  defigned,   and 
to  falisfy  the  difcerning  and  attentive  beholder,  that  it  is  light; 
but  yet  every  one  gives  not  a  light  equally  clear,  great,  glorious, 
2fie£iing  and,  powerful  :  T/iere  is  one  glory  of  the  fun,  another  of 
ths  moon,  another  of  ihejlars  :  and  one  flar  e.xcelkth  another  in 
glory;  and  fonietinies  the  greatell  light,  if  li  is  at  the  greateft  dif- 
ilance,  like  the  fixed  fiars,  affect  us  lefs,and  llune  lefs  dear  to  us, 
ihun  weaker  lights,  which,  like  the  moon,  are  nearer.     In  the 
icripture  there  are  propofitions  which  tell  us  thinf^s,Mhich  though 
they  arc  in  their  own  place  and  proper  circumtlances,  ufeful  to 
them,  for  whom  they  are   pavticuhtrly  defigned,  and    to  their 
proper  fcope  ;  yet  they  are  comparatively  of  lefs  importance  to 
us,  as  acquainting  us   with   thinf;!-;  of  lefs  confiderable  natures 
and  ufe  to   us,  and  which  lie  not  lb  far  out  cf  our  reach,  being 
in  fomc  meafure   known,  or  knowable  without  divine  revela- 
tion, though  it  was  necelTary,  that  in  order  to  their  particular  \.\(q 
to  us  in  our  walk  with  God,  they  fhould  be  better  fecured,  and 
oiFcrcd  U3  upon  the  faith  of  the  divine  tefumouy.     Again,  there 
are  other  propofitions,  wliic'n  hold  forth  to  us  truths  in  their  own 
nature  of  more  importance,   that   lie  iuriher  out  of  our  reach, 
being  neither  knovv/n,  nor  indeed  knowable  by  us,  without  di- 
vine revelation  ;  and  which   in   our  pi-efent  cafes  and  circum- 
flances  are  more  nearly  fuited  to  our  cafe,  and  wherein  there- 
fore our  prefent  concernment  doth  more  diredly  appear  to  be 

inrercHeJ 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  453 

i^iterefted,  and  which  therefore  imprefs  us  with,  and  leave  in  us 
effecls  more  lafting  and  dilcernible.  Now  it  rrjuft  be  allowed, 
tliat  the  truths  of  this  iaft  fort  have  an  evidence  more  bright, 
great,  afFe6\iiig  and  fenfible,  than  thofe  of  the  former  fort. 

5..  Hereon  fundry  fubordinate  obfervations  offer  themfelves, 
which  are  of  the  greatefl:  importance  for  clearing  the  difliculty 
under  confulcration,  i.  Truths  in  fcripture,  or  propofnions  ac- 
quainting U5  with  thini^^s,  otherwife  in  fome  refpe(^  within  our 
reach,  and  only  vouched  by  God  in  order  to  the  ftability  of 
pur  faith  in  them,  (in  fo  far  as  we  are  in  pra6\ice  obliged  to 
lay  weight  on  them)  and  to  give  us,  not  fo  much  fatisfa6tioa 
as  to  their  truth  abfolutely,  as  fome  additional  fecurity  about 
thpm ;  ihefe  cannot  be  fuppofed  fo  difcernibly  to  aile<5l  our 
minds,  as  truths  of  another  nature,  in  as  much  as  this  additional 
evidence  is  more  diihcult  to  diflinguiih  .from  the  evidence  we 
have  otherwife  for  them.  Befides  that,  God  feeing  that  we  are 
not  fo  hard  to  be  induced  to  a  belief  of  them,  or  fo  liable  to 
temptations  that  may  fhake  our  faith,  fees  it  not  meet  to  fiamp 
fuch  bright,  lively  and  affe6iing  impreflions  of  hiinfelf  on 
them  :  for  it  is  unworthy  of  him  to  do  any  thing  in  vain. 
2.  On  the  other  hand,  thefe  propofitions  which  difclefe  the  fe- 
cret  purpofes,  or  knowledge  of  God,  and  things  hid  in  it,  that 
lie  witlihi  the  reach  of  no  mortal,  or  perhaps  created  under- 
(ianding,  wiihout  revelation,  raufi  make  a  more  vivid  and  live- 
ly impreffion  on  the  mind,  as  illuminating  it  with  the  know- 
ledge of  things,  whereto  it  was,  and  by  its  own  reach  forever 
rnuil  remain  a  flranger.  3,  In  like  manner  truths,  wherein 
our  eternal  falvatiqn,  or  prefent  relief  from  incumbent  trou- 
ble, is  directly  concerned,  do  more  forcibly  affe6l,  and  have 
a  more  powerful  influence,  than  thofe  which  lie  more  remote 
from  our  prefent  ufe,  of  how  great  advantage  foever  in  their 
proper  place  they  may  be.  The  moon,  which  points  out 
my  way  in  the  night,  guides  me,  and  faves  me  from  Jcfing 
myfelforway,  at  that  time  affe61s  me  more  than  the  light  of 
the  fun,  which  I  have  formerly  feen,  but  do  not  now  behold  ; 
though  the  moon  comparatively  has  no  light,  and  borrows  that 
which  it  hath  from  the  fun.  In  like  manner,  truths  in  them- 
felves of  lefs  importance,  and  which  derive  all  their  glory 
from  thofe  that  are  more  important,  yet,  v/hen  they  fuit  my 
prefenl  cafe,  affeds  me  more,  and  their  evidence  appears  grea- 
ter. Every  thing  is  beautiful  in  its  feafon.  That  there  is  fuch  a 
city  as  Jerufaiem,  or  that  there  was  fuch  a  one,  the  fcripture 

tells 


454  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

tells  us.  Of  this  we  are  otherwife  informed,  and  are  not  like- 
ly to  be  tempted  as  to  its  truth  :  this  however  is  told  us  in  the 
word,  and  therefore  we  are  to  receive  it  on  the  teftimony  of  the 
word  ;  but  the  faiih  of  it  is  not  fo  di^Hcult,  on  accounts  men- 
tioned ;  it  is  not  told  but  with  refpecl  to  fome  particular  fcope, 
and  we  have  onlv  an  additional  fecurity  about  it.  Hereon  our 
minds  are  not  fo  illuminated,  influenced,  and  afFeiled  with  the 
difcovery,  as  when  God  tells  us,  he  was  in  Chrift  reconciling 
the  world  to  himfdif.  The  difcovery  of  this  liiis  us  with  a  fenfe 
of  the  glory  oj  God^  hitherto  unknown,  and  that  lay  far  out 
of  the  reach  of  vulo;ar  eyes,  or  any  mortal  to  difcover,  without 
divine  revelation.  And  therefore  the  difcovery  ailcCts  the  more. 
Again,  I  atn  perplexed  about  through-bearing  in  fome  parti- 
cular i^rait  ;  a  promife  of  grace  to  help  in  it,  though  it  is  of 
lefs  importance  than  the  forementioned  difcovery  of  reconcilia- 
tion, and  has  no  eHicacy,  light  or  glory,  fave  what  it  derives 
from  the  former,  yet  coming  in  the  feafon  wherein  I  am  whol- 
ly exercifed  about  it,  and  the  cafe  whereto  it  relates,  it  aifecis 
me  more.  4.  Where  the  fame  truth  is  at  the  fame  timedifcovered 
by  different  lights,  it  is  not  eafy  for  perfons,  if  not  very  dif- 
cerning  and  attentive,  to  underftand  the  diflin6t  and  particular 
influence  of  the  feveral  lights  ;  fuch  as  thai  of  natural  light,  hu- 
man teftimony,  and  revelation  ;  and  yet  each  of  them  have 
iheir  own  particular  ufe,  which  upon  its  extindion  would  ap- 
pear by  the  de(e6i  v/e  would  feel. 

6.  With  refped  to  truths  of  high  importance,  otherwife  un- 
known, which  affeil  our  minds  with  the  enriching  light  of 
things,  by  us  formerly  not  known  or  knowable,  and  which  by 
their  fuitablcnefs  to  prefcnt  circumflances,  or  exercife,  do  more 
iirongly  affetl  with  a  fenfe  of  the  divine  authority,  and  illumi- 
nate the  mind,  there  is  no  difficulty,  fave  in  the  cafes  afJerwards 
to  be  taken  notice  of,  or  the  like. 

7.  As  to  thefe  truths  and  fcripture  propofttlons  which  relate 
to  things  not  fo  remote  from  our  apprehenfions,  or  are  not  fo 
fnitable  to  our  circumRances,  at  prefent,  or  difcover  things  of 
lefs  importance  to  us,  it  is  owned,  that  even  real  Chrillians  who 
have  faith,  or  a  fpitiliiil  difcerning,  for  ordinary,  are  not,  upon 
hearing  or  reading  them,  flruck  or  ailed  d  with  io  fenfible, 
clear  and  alfedling  evidence  of  God,  as  they  are  in  other  fcrip- 
tares  of  a  diftercnt  nature  and  relation,  which  arifes  from  the 
nature  oC  the  truths  in  ihemfelves,  the  manner  and  defign  of 
God  in  the  delivery,  our  prefent  circumflances,  the  weaknefs 

and 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE   FAITH.  455 

tjnd  imperfe6ilon  of  our  faith,  the  incidental  indifpofitions-we 
are  under,  and  other  caufes  which  may  be  eaiily  colle^fted  from 
what  has  been  formerjy  hinted  in  the  preceding  obfervaticns. 

8.  All  this,  notwilhftanding  the  lead  confiderablc  of  thefe 
truths,  has  a  fufficient  evidence  of  the  divine  authority,  that  is, 
fuch  an  evidence  as  anfwers  the  defign  of  God  in  them,  and  is 
able  to  determine  the  believer's  affent,  and  oblige  him  to  obey  or 
fubmit,  and  is  every  way  fuitable  to  the  weight  that  is  to  be  laid 
©n  them,  with  refpe6^  to  the  fcope  they  are  mentioned  for,  and 
importance  of  the  matter  ;  which  though  at  all  times  it  is  not 
equally  difcernible,  for  the  reafons  above-mentioned,  or  others 
of  an  alike  nature  ;  yet  in  its  proper  feafon  it  is  obferved  by 
judicious,  obferving,  and  refle6ling  Chriflians.  As  for  inftance, 
when  any  of  thefe  truths,  of  the  lead  apparent  importance,  are 
queftioned  by  Satan  or  men,  then  the  authority  of  God  is  felt  to 
have  that  influence  and  awe  upon  the  confciences  of  believers,  as 
wiJl  not  allow  them  to  part  with  the  leafi  hoof  or  fnred  of  divine 
truth,  and.  will  make  them  maugre  all  oppcfilion,  cleave  to  it, 
though  it  fhould  coft  them  their  life.  Likewife  when  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  to  apply  thefe  truths  to  the  particular  fcope  at  which 
he  aimed  in  ailerting  them  in  the  book  of  Gcd,  then  not  only 
have  they  fuch  evidence  as  influences  affent  and  adherence?  but 
emboldens  the  foul  to  lay  that  ftrefs  on  thera,  which  the  cafe 
doth  require. 

9.  Whereas  neither  our  prefent  imperfe6\  date  and  capacities, 
the  nature  of  the  things,  nor  other  circumftances,  allow  of  an  evi- 
dence equally  clear  and  great  as  in  other  truths,  the  wifdom  and 
goodnefs  of  God, in  confideration  of  this,  to  prevent  the  ibaking, 
or  at  leaft  failing  of  our  faith,  have  as  ro  thefe  provided  many 
ways  for  our  fecurity  :  as,  i.  Though  in  the  particular  pafl'ages, 
fuch  evidence  (bines  not  in  themfelves  apart,  yet  there  often  ap- 
pears a  beaming  light,  when  they  are  prefented  in  reference  to 
the  fcope  intended  by  God,  2.  Other  palTages  are  joined  with 
them,  placed  near  them,  and  related  to  them,  which  have  a  fur- 
ther evidence  of  God,  and  though  we  cannot  difcern  them  when 
they  are  looked  at  ab(lra6ily,  yet  when  we  look  to  them  in  re- 
lation to  thefe,  on  which  they  hang,  i^nd  to  which  they  are 
connected,  we  are  fatisfied.  And  1  conceive  there  may  be  an 
eye  to  this,  in  dropping  doOrinal  paflages,  and  inferting  them 
in  fcripture  hiftory.  3.  This  objection  principally  refpe«5^s  tlie 
Old  Tedament ;  as  to  the  divine  authority  of  which  we  are  par- 
ticularly fecurcji  by   plain  and  evident  teftimonies  in  the  New. 

4.  Some- 


^r/j  ,  AN    ESSAY   CONCERNING 

4.  Sornetimes  with  fach  truths  there  «re  dire£\  ancrtions  o^  (he 
Lord's  ipeaking  of  them  joined  ;  of  which  there  are  many  in~ 
fiarices  in  the  books  of  Mofes,  wherein  it  is  exprefsly  dcciared, 
tliat  what  was  then  enjoined,  was  by  ihe  particular  command  of 
God.*  5,  Believers  for  ordinary,  being,  in  the  reading  of  the 
-xvord  of  God,  made  fenfible  of  liis  authority,  will  not  be  eaiily 
brought  to  admit  of  any  fufpicion,  that  a  book  wherein  God 
iliews  hii.mfelf  fo  evidently  concerned ,  and  owns,  as  to  the  bulk, 
to  be  from  him,  is  or  can  by  him  be  allowed  to  be  in  other 
places  filled  up  with  propofitions,  or  matters  of  a  coarfer  alloy  : 
And  therefore  they  will  rather  queflion  themfelves,  and  their 
own  ignornace,  than  impeach  the  divinity  cf  the  fcriptures  on 
this  account. 

IG.  Though  no  faulty  obfcurity  is  chargeable  on  the  fcrip- 
tures, (as  much  of  thcnj  as  in  prefent  circumdances  is  of  ab- 
fclute  neceffity  to  believers,  in  order  to  their  acceptable  walk- 
ing v.'ith  God,  being  clearly  revealed)  yet  there  are  many 
truths  not  underfiood  by  all,  nor  perhaps  by  any,  therein  in- 
ferred, to  leave  room  for  the  diligence,  trial  of  the  faith  of 
Chriftians,  their  progrefs  in  knowledge,  and  other  wife  ends. 
Now,  till  in  the  ule  of  sppointed  means,  the  Spirit  of  God  open 
to  us  the  meaning  of  thefe  fcriptures,  we  cannot  perceive  the 
light  and.power  that  is  in  them:  but  vvhenever  he  opens  thefe 
fcriptures,  that  fame  light  that  difcoi'ers  the  naeaning,  will  not 
fail  to  alTedi,  afid  make  our  hearts  burn  within  us,  with  the 
fenfe  of  divine  light,  authority  and  powder.  Of  this  the  expe- 
rience of  the  people  of  God,  as  fhey  grow  in  knowledge,  fur- 
niOies  them  daily  with  new  inflances,  and  therefore  they  do 
not  Oumble  at  the  want  of  the  prefent  fenfe  of  this  light,  but  are 
quickened  to  diligence,  excited  to  frequent  cries  for  opening  of 
their  eyes,  that  they  may  underhand  the  wonders,  that  by  tlie 
knowledge  of  other  parts  of  the  word  they  are  iridijced  to  be- 
lieve couched  in  thefe  parts,  which  yet  they  know  not. 

II.  As  has  been  bcfciie  more  than  ipfmuated,  there  are,  in 
fcripture,  truths  defigncd  for,  and  fuited  to  difFerent  perfcr.s, 
in  ditrerent  circumftances  ;  the  book  of  God  being  dcfigned  for 
the  life  of  the  whole  church,  and  all  in  it,  in  all  fiations,  re- 
lations,  cafes,  temptations  and  difterent  circumUances,  in  which 
any  are,  have  been  in,  or  may  be  in.  Now  when  God  fpcaks 
to  one,  what  he  fays  cannot  be  fo  afleclipg  to  another,  no 
wife  in  the  fame  or 'like  cafe  ;  though  yet  he  may  knew  fome- 

what 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  457 

v.bat  of  the  Lord's  voice  in  it.     And  the  fame  is  to  be   fald   as 
to  the  fame  perfon,  with  rerpe6l  to  different  cafes. 

12.  It  mud  be  ilill  minded,  that  though  every  part  of  fcrip- 
ture  has,  in  it  proper  place  and  degree,  a  fufficient  evidence  of 
the  divine  authority,  yet  the  a6iual  difcerning  of  it  depends  ve- 
ry much  upon  the  prefent  ftate  of  the  difcerning  power  or  faith 
of  the  Chriilian,  v^'hich  difccrns  it  or  not,  or  difcerns  it  mors 
or  lefs  clearly,  as  it  is  ftronger  or  weaker,  more  free  from  ac- 
cidental indifpofiticns,  outward  temptations,  or  more  affe6\ed 
by  them.  And  the  fame  is  to  be  faid,  as  to  its  being  more  or 
lefs  intently  and  ofderly  applied  to  the  obfervation  of  the  evi- 
dence or  God  in  the  word. 

13.  Yet  whereas  they,  who  are  once  renewed,  do  continue  ftill 
children  of  the  light,  and  have  a  fpiritual  capacity  of  difcerning 
the  Lord's  voice  from  that  o-i-a.  flranger,  they  do  for  ordinary,  in 
the  fcriptur^s,  find  the  authority  o{  God  evidencing  itfelf  fuita- 
bly  to  the  particular  exigence  of  their  particular  cafes,  where  the 
truths  that  occur  are  not  fuch  wherein  their  prefent  faith  or  pra6^ice 
is  immediately  affeded ;  or  where  the  truths  are  fuch  as  to  which, 
in  iheir  own  abftra6l  nature,  no  more  is  required  fave  a  bare  af- 
fent,they  being  only  inferted  v^ith  refpe6t  to  fome  other  particular 
fcope,where  the  truths  are  not  prefenily  affaulted,  where  they  are 
not  immediately  called  to  hazard  much  upon  them, or  in  other  the 
liiie  cafes,  they  are  indeed  lefs  afle6ied  ;  but  one  way  or  other^ 
from  one  thing  or  another,  as  much  of  God  fhines  in  them  as 
is  fufficient  to  engage  to  a  ptefent  adherence,  and  fome  becom- 
ing reverence  as  to  the  oracles  of  God,  which  may  in  their  fea- 
fon  manifert  their  ufefulnefs  to  us,  and  do  at  prefent  manifeft  it 
to  others.  And  where  tru(hs  are  of  a  different  nature  and  im- 
portance, and  fuit  prelent  neceffities,  and  require  more  diftinf^ 
a6lings  of  faith  or  obedience,  and  we  are  called  to  lay  more 
ftrefs  on  them  ;  in  that  cafe  the  evidence  of  God  ihincs  more 
brightly.  And  fcarce  ever  will  a  difcerning  and  attentive 
Chridian,  who  is  not  grievoufly  iadifpofed  by  fome  cafual  dif- 
order,  read  the  fcriptures,  or  any  confiderabie  part  of  them, 
but  fome  where  or  other,  in  the  fcope  or  particular  words,  and 
propofitions,  or  their  contexture,  fome  light  will  fhine  in  upon 
the  foul,  enforcing  a  conviction.  That  God  is  in  it  of  a  truth, 

14.  V/hen  the  faith  of  the  Lord's  people  is  alfaulted  as  to 
the  truth  o^  the  uord  ;  when  in  difficult  cafes  and  duties  they 
are  called  to  lay  much  ftrefs  upon  the  word,  and  hazard  as  '^ 
v/ere  their  all  ',   when   they  are   dirireffed  with   particular  and 

^  I  1  violent 


458  AN    ESSAY   COi\CERNlNG 

violent  ternp;jtations,  and  need  comfort  ;  when  under  fpiritual 
decays,  and  God  deiigns  to  leilore  them  ;  wlicn  newly  brous^ht 
in,  and  need  to  be  confirmed  ;  when  they  are  hiin)ble  and  dili- 
gent, and  the  liOrd  deiigns  to  reward  them  gracioufjy,  and  en-^ 
courage  them  to  go  on  ;  when  difficulted  to  find  duty,  and 
waiting  on  the  Lord  for  light,  in  cafes  of  more  than  ufual  im- 
portance ;  when  the  Lord  has  a  mind  to  carry  on  an}^  to  peculiar 
degrees  of  holinefi'  and  grace,  and  employ  them  in  fpeciaj  fer- 
vices  ;  and,  in  a  word,  wherever  any  extraordinary  exigence 
requires,  then  the  Lord  opens  his  people's  ears,  removes  what 
intercepts  the  di(coveries  of  his  mind,  fixes  th.cir  ear  to  hear, 
and  fpeaks  the  word  diflin£\iy,  powerfully  and  fvvectly  to  the 
foul,  and  gives  them  in  and  by  it,  fuch  a  taOe  of  his  goodnefs, 
wifdom,  and  power,  and  experience  of  his  authority  in  the 
word,  and  his  gracious  defign  and  hand  in  its  application  at 
pret'ent,  as  fills  the  foul  with  the  riches  and  full  ajfurance  of 
faith,  peace,  joy,  and  fiedfaflnefs  in  believing. 

Prop.  Xll,  **  Whereas  there  are  dilTerent  readings  of  par- 
"  ticular  places  in  ancient  copies,  and  places  wrong  tranfiated. 
**  in  ourverfions,  it  may  be  pretended,  that  we  are,  or  may  be 
"  impofed  upon,  and  affent  to  truths,  or  rather  to  propofitionSj 
*'  not  of  a  divine  original,  cafually  crept  into  our  copies  of 
*'  the  original,  or  tranfiation.  In  anfwer  hereto,  the  forego- 
*'  ing  ground  of  faiih  lays.a  fufhcient  bottom  for  the  fatisfa^iion 
"  of  Chriflians,  in  \o  far  as  their  cafe  and  particular  tcmptati- 
**   ons  require." 

To  clear  tl-is  a  liitle,  I  iliall  offer  the  enfuing  remaiks  : 

1.  Where  llie  authority  of  God  evidences  itfelf  in  the  way 
above  explained,  and  confirmed  to  the  mind,  believers  have  a 
fiable  and  fare  foundation  for  their  faith,  whether  they  ufe 
tranjlaiions  or  the  originals  ;  thorjgh  it  mud  be  allowed,  where 
perlons  are  cripjhie  of  it,  the  originals  are  mofl  fatisfying. 
And  this  is  plainly  the  cafe,  as  all  real  Chriflians  from  certain 
experience  know,  as  to  all  the  truths  of  the  grcatefl  importance, 
aud  whereon  our  fail'n  or  obedience  are  mere  immediately  or 
dlrecfly  concerned  :  fo  that  as  to  thefe  there  is  no  room  left  ^ot 
this  obje6Uon. 

2.  The  witdom  of  God  iias  fo  carefiiliy  provided  for  the  fe- 
curity  and  ftability  of  our  faith,  as  to  particular  truths  of  any 
confiderable  importance,  againft  pretences  of  this,  or  an  alike 
ilaune,  that  oar  failii  rclls  not  upon  the  evidence  of  one  fingle 

tcftimony 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  459 

reftimony,  but  fuch  truths  upon  a  variety  of  occafions  arc  often 
repeated,  and  our  faith  leans  upan  thern,  not  only  as  thus  fre- 
quently repeated,  but  cleared  and  confirmed  by  th«?ir  connexion 
to  o'her  truths  which  infer  them,  and  to  the  whole  analogy  of 
faith,  or  current  of  the  fcriptures,  with  refpc6l  to  that  which  is 
the  principal  defign  of  God.  So  that  we  are  in  no  hazard  of  be- 
ing deprived  of  any  one  truth,  of  any  conllderabie  influence,  in 
faith  or  pra6fice,  by  pretended  corruptions,  or  wrong  tranllations. 
The  famous  Dr.  Owen,  who  had  confidered  the  whole  various 
readings,  and  well  knew  the  failures  of  particular  tranflations, 
obferves,  That  were  all  the  various  readings,  added  to  the  woril 
and  moft  faulty  tranflation,  the  church  of  God  would  not  fuQain 
by  it  the  lofs  of  one  important  truth. 

3.  Where  any  perfon  is  particularly  concerned  to  be  fatis- 
fied  which  is  the  right  reading  of  any  particular  palTage,  and 
how  it  ought  to  be  tranflated,  they  may,  by  the  help  of  the 
minifters  of  the  gofpel,  fuch  of  them  as  are  particularly  fitted 
with  fkill  in  fuch  matters,  and  by  the  endeavours  of  learned 
men,  who  have  particularly  confidered  every  one  of  thefe  paf- 
fages,  in  a  humble  dependence  on  God  for  the  blefling  of  thefe 
means,  (tvhich  the  wife  God  has  multiplied,  fince  diiHcultles 
of  this  fort  begun  to  create  any  trouble  to  the  faith  of  his  peo- 
ple) by  thefe  means  I  fay,  joined  with  an  eye  to  the  Lord, 
they  may  come  to  be  particularly  fatisfied.  If  any  man  will 
do  his  willf  he  /hall  know  the  do^rine,  luhether  it  is  oj  God. 

4.  Where  there  is  not  accefs  to  thefe  means,  which  will  not 
readily  happen  to  perfons  called  to  fuch  exercife,  (which  rarely 
befalls  the  ordinary  fort  of  Chriflians)  yet  the  Lord  can  eafily 
relieve  the  perfon  thus  exercifed,  by  evidencing  his  authority  to 
the  confcience  in  a  fatisfying  light,  or  by  enabling  him  to  wait 
for  light  until  the  folution  comes,  or  by  removing  the  temptation, 
when  it  becomes  too  ftrong,  or  by  leading  him  to  refi  in  the 
particular  truth,  as  fecured  by  other  palTages  not  queitioned, 
or  by  fome  fuch  like  way. 

5.  The  difficulty  as  to  tranflations  Is  really  of  lefs  importance; 
and  as  to  the  other  about  pretended  corruptions,  ordinary  Chrif- 
lians, whofe  confciences  are  daily  afiPe^led  with  the  evicience  of 
God's  authority  in  the  word,  and  his  owning  it  as  his  word,  fpeak- 
ing  by  it  to  them,  and  conveying  divine  influences  of  light,  life 
and  comfort,  will  not  fear  or  entertain  any  fufpicion  fo  unwor- 
thy of  God, as  that  he  could  allow  the  word  he  thus  owns,  under 
a  pretence  of  his  authority,  to  impofe  on  them  affertions  of  hu- 
man 


46o  AN    ESSAY    CONCERNING 

man  extracl,  and  of  any  ill  confequence  to  their  faith  or  obe- 
dience. 

6.  I  fliall  only  Tub  join  this  one  obfervatlon,  That  enemies 
gain  more  by  propofmg  thefe  pretended  corruphons  in  cumulo* , 
and  In  fuch  a  bulky  way,  as  to  affright  Chriftians  who  are  ca- 
pable of  fuch  obje6tions,  than  by  infiftng  upon  any  particular 
one,  and  attempts  to  prove  them  of  equal  authority  with  the 
reading  retained  in  the  approved  originals.  Their  unfuccefsful- 
ncfs  in  endeavours  of  this  laft  fort  difcovers,  that  there  is  really 
nothing  of  weight  in  that  fo  much  ooifed  obje6\ion  about  various 
readings  :  for  if  there  were  any  fuch  readings  as  could  really 
make  any  conuderable  alteration,  and  were  fupported  with  any 
authority  able  to  cope  with  the  received  readings,  why  do  they 
not  produce  thefe?  Others  are  of  no  confideration  ;  thefe  only 
are  to  be  regarded  :  and  of  this  fort  there  are  but  very  few  thaj 
the  moft  impudent  dare  pretend  ;  and  thefe  few  have  been  dif- 
proved  and  dlfallov^^ed  by  pcrfons  of  equal  capacity  and  learn- 
ing. But  to  leave  this,  which  is  above  the  ordinary  Jort  of 
Chriflians,  the  Lord's  people,  to  whom  he  has  evidenced  his 
own  authority,  in  the  way  above  mentioned,  will  be  moved  with 
none  of  thefe  things.  They  will  not  forego  the  word,  but  re- 
tain it  as  their  life,  and  pay  lefpcd  to  it  as  the  word  of  God  ; 
and  they  have  good  reafon  to  do  fo= 

I  iliall  now  obferve  hence, 

1.  How  juilly  divine  faith  maybe  faid  to  be  infallible,  as 
fiandinp:  on  an  infallible  ground,  the  faithfulnefs  and  truth  of 
God  in  the  word.  Through  daikncfs  we  may  fometimcs  not 
difccrn,  through  negligence  not  obferve,  or  through  the  force 
of  temptations  interpofmg  betwixt  us  and  it,  we  may  lofe 
fight  of  the  evidence  of  this  authority  ;  and  fo  our  faith  may 
fhake  or  fail.  But  while  it  fixes  on  this,  it  cannot  fail,  though 
wc  may  quit,  or  by  violence  be  beat  off";  the  ground  is  firm,  and 
cannot  fail,  the  fcripturcs  cannot  be  broken. 

2.  Hence  it  is.  That  the  meaneft  and  weakeA  believers,  who 
know  nothing  of  the  props  others  have  to  fupport  them,  do  cleave 
as  firmly  to  the  word,  run  with  all  courage,  3ind  as  much  cheer- 
fulnefs,  all  hazards  for  it,  to  the  lofs  of  whatever  is  dear  to  them, 
life  not  excepted,  as  the  mof^  judicious  divine,  and  offentin>es 
they  are  much  more  firm.  This  is  upon  no  other  grounds 
accountable.  This  reafon  of  faith  is  as  mucli  expofed  to  them 
33  to  the  mofl  learned. 

3.  All 
*  <«  lu  bulk.'" 


THE  REASON  OF  TRUE  FAITH.  461 

o.  All  objections  arlfing  againft  this  ground  of  faith ^  will  be 
eafily  folved,  if"  we  confider,  i.  That  the  fcriptures  are  a  relief 
provided  by  fovereign  grace,  for  thofe  of  the  race  of  fallen 
iTian,  to  v/hcrr-  God  defigns  iTiCrcy,  and  fo  God  was  not  obli- 
ged to  adjud  it  in  all  refpe6^s  to  the  natural  capacities  of  men  in 
their  prefent  Oate,  but  it  was  meet  that  the  word  tliould  be 
fo  writ,  that  room  lliould  be  left  for  the  difcoveries  of  the  fove- 
reignty  of  grace,  and  the  other  means  God  defigned  to  make 
vjfe  of  in  fubferviency  to  the  word.  It  was  not  meet  nor  necef- 
fary  that  all  (hould  be  fo  propofed,  as  to  lie  open  to  men  without 
the  affillance  of  the  Spirit,  and  without  the  miniftry  of  the  word. 
2.  The  ward  was  not  defigned  alone  to  conducf  us,  but  God 
has  given  the  Spirit  with  the  word,  who  reaches  us  in  and  by 
it,  as  he  fees  meet.  3.  The  word  is  defigned  to  be  a  rule  to 
all  ages,  and  therefore  it  was  not  meet  or  neceiTary,  that  what 
concerns  perfons  in  one  age  fhould  be  equally  expofed  in  its 
meaning  unto  other  perfons,  who  lived  in  a  different  time.  It 
is  fufiicient,  that  in  every  age,  what  concerns  that  time  lie  fo 
open,  that  in  the  ufe  of  the  means  of  God's  appointment,  they 
may  reach  that  wherein  they  are  concerned.  4.  The  word 
was  defigned  for  perfons  of  different  fiations,  capacities  and  ca- 
fes, who  ought  to  reft  fatisfied  in  the  obvious  difcoveries  of 
what  concerns  them,  in  their  own  particular  circumftances,  and 
is  required  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  more  particularly  in  a 
way  of  duty,  of  them,  though  they  cannot  fee  fo  clearly  what 
belongs  to  others  in  different  circumftances.  5.  God  has  not 
fyftematically  and  feparately  difcourfed  all  particular  cafes  un- 
der diftin6t  heads ;  but  to  leave  room  for  the  condu6t  of  the 
Spirit,  for  exciting  the  diligence  of  Chriftians  to  iludy  the  whole 
fcriptures,  and  for  other  reafons  obvious  to  infinite  wifdom, 
he  has  digefted  them  in  a  method,  more  congruous  to  thefe 
wife  ends.  6.  The  Lord  defigning  the  exercife  of  the  faith  of 
his  own,  and  to  humble  them,  and  to  drive  them  to  a  depen- 
dence on  himfelf,  and  to  punifh  the  wicked,  and  give  them  who 
will  ftumble  at  the  ways  of  God  fomewhat  to  break  their  neck 
on,  he  has  digefted  them  fo,  as  that  there  maybe  occaiions,  thou<>h 
always  without  fault  on  God's  part,  for  all  thofe  ends  :  Wifdom 
-will  be  jujiified  of  her  children,  and  to  fome  he  /peaks  in  para- 
kUs,  that  fdeing  they  may  not  fee» 


FINIS. 


1      N      D 


X 


OF      THE 


Authors  and  Books  quoted  in  the  preceding  TForL 


A 


IKENHEAD's  Speech. 
Alcoran. 

Amyrauld  de  Religionibus. 
A.riilotIe's  Ethicks. 
Auguft.  de  Civiiate  Dei. 

Bayle's  great    Hift.   and    Crit, 

Didion. 
Baxter's  Animad.  on  Herberti 

. De  Veritate. 

. ■  Reafon's  for    Chriftian 

Religion. 
■ More  Reafons  for  Chrif- 


tian  Religion. 
Becconfal  on  the  Law  of  Nature. 
Blount's  Oracles  of  Reafon. 

Religio  Laici. 

Boyle's  Excellency  of  Theology 

beyond  Natural  Philofcphy. 
Burnet  on  the  Thirty-Nioe  Ar. 
tides. 

Cxht  de  Bello  Gallico. 
Cicero's  Tufculan  Qnefiions. 

De  iSiatura  Deorunu 

De  Lisibus. 


De  Amicitia. 


Clarkfon's  pradticil  Divinity  of 

the  Pa  pi  lis. 
Claudian, 

Clementis  Alexandrina  Stromata. 
Clerk's  (Le)  Parrhafiana, 

■ Comput.  Hiitor^ 

Collin's  Difcoarfes  de  Aniir^abus 

Paganorum. 


Dacier's  Plato. 
Deift's  Manuel. 
Difcourfe  on  Moral  Virtue,  and 

its  Difference  from  Grace. 
Dryden's  Hind  and  Panther. 

Epidetus. 

Fergufon's   Enquiry  into  Moral 
Virtue. 

Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles* 
Growth  of  Deifm, 

Heid.  (Abrah.)  de  Origine  Er- 

roris, 
Herbert  de  Veritate. 

De  P.elig.  Gent. 

Religio  Laici. 

Hornbeck  de  Converfione  Gen- 

tilium. 
Hieroclis  Carmina  Aurea. 
Hobb's  Leviathan. 
Howe's  Living  Temple. 
Humphrey's  Peaceable    Difqui- 

fuioRs. 

Jamblichus  de  Vita  Pylhag. 
Jefuits  Morals. 

Lacrtius  (Diog.)  de  Vitis  Philo- 

fophorum. 
Letter  to  the  Deifts. 


Limbarch's  Conference  u: 

reiius  the  Jew. 
Locke  on  Human  Ur.aeri 


o. 


464 


Locke's  Reafonablenefs  of  Chrif- 
tianlty, 

Maximas  Tyrius. 

Niccl's  Conference  with  a  The- 

ill. 
Kye    (Stephen)   on  natural  and 

revcvlled  Religion. 

Ovid,  de  Ponto. 

Pvletaroorph. 

Owen  on  the  Sabbath. 

Theologuni, 

on  the  Hebrews, 

.  De  Juftiiia  Vindicate 

Outramus  de  Sacrificiis. 

Parker's  (Sam.)  Defence  of  Ec- 

clefiaiiical  Polity. 
Prudentius  (Aurelius). 
PufiendoifF's  Introduction*  to  the 

liiilory  of  Europe, 


Refleriicns   on   the   Growth  of 

Deifn^. 
Remonflrant.  Apologia, 
Rivet  on  Hofea. 
Rufhworth's  HiHor.  CoUei^sons. 

Seneca's  Epift. 

De  Ira, 

De  Providentia. 

Siniplicius  in  Epidetum. 
Spinoza's  Eihicks, 
Stanley's  Lives, 
Sdliingfleet's  Origines  Sacrai. 

^Tuckney's  (Anth.)  Sermons- 
Turretine. 

Wiifon's  Scripture  Interpreter. 
Wolfelf)-'s  (bir  Charles)   Scrip* 

ture  Belief. 
Videllii  Arcana  Arminianifmi. 

And  his  Rejoinder, 
Videiius  Rapfodus, 


r^^^^'^ 


n. 


